Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Linking in infoboxes and tables

Following from the above, I propose that we establish that linking in infoboxes and tables should be treated completely differently, in that linking to what are otherwise common terms but used for identification or classification, and/or repeating what is stated in prose, should be considered appropriate.

For infoboxes, this is because this is the "quick view" that people may seen, and thus should be considered a stand-alone, independent part of the article. Thus, links that are normally used for identification, location, classification, or the like should be present regardless if the term is common. Mind you, the term should only be linked the first time (so if you have a movie where a director also starred in the movie, he'd only be linked the first time).
In tables, every row (particularly sortable tables) or columns need to be treated as independent elements, so linking should be used as much as possible, including repeating links if they happened to be in the same row. This advice is already sort of there, but as this is connected with the concept of independence from the prose like infoboxes, it needs to be reiterated.

Once in prose, that all changes, but if we start with the establishment that it is nearly impossible to consider overlinking in infoboxes and tables, that's a start to something. --MASEM (t) 17:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with this proposal, as tables and infoboxes are a separate breed really. They're all about formatting after all, and the "interrupted prose" argument of course doesn't apply. The detail about duplication - or otherwise - within each of them seems eminently sensible as well. N-HH talk/edits 18:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

ps: note, not that I'm endorsing the interrupted prose argument necessarily when it comes to the intro and main body. I'm not sure that reducing a paragraph of text from having, say, five links to four makes a huge difference either way. The downside far outweighs any possible upside, assuming the link removed was a serious and relevant one. But, as suggested, that's another debate ..

Strongly oppose this WP:POINTY attempt to undermine the styleguides. There is no reasonable case for suddenly exempting infoboxes. In addition, community support in the first place for infoboxes is very wobbly: I can link you to a few recent discussions if you want. This is not the time to go around asking that infoboxes be treated like little tin gods: that would be pushing your luck. Tony (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be assuming bad faith; this is an attempt to dissect the problem just like there was the issue with date delinking. Furthermore, I have seen nothing suggesting we (as a whole) get rid of infoboxes; standardization and improvements instead of every little detail, yes, but not wholesale removal. Ignoring that aspect, there is zero harm with linking in the infobox, compared with the problems of linking in prose that we do need to worry about (eg issues of link density, multiple links in a row, inappropriately-named piped links, etc.) --MASEM (t) 04:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose; Counter-proposal. First, let me say I do agree w/nom that in some instances infoboxes are viewed as stand-alone summaries. An example -- we can reflect the date of birth of a person in an infobox, even though it is also reflected in the text of the article.

But I see nothing in the proposal that supports the proposition that, consequently, we should link more in the infobox than we do in the article. In fact, precisely the opposite is the case.

As the guideline states:

Some editors feel that the lead section is a special case. On the one hand it might be desirable to have fewer links in the lead section than in the body of the text; while some links make it easier to scan a longer lead by highlighting key terms, too many make it harder. On the other hand, in technical articles that use many uncommon terms in the introduction, a higher-than-usual link density in the lead section may be necessary to facilitate understanding; but, if possible, try giving an informal explanation in the lead, avoiding using too many technical terms until later in the article: see point 5 of WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal, and WP:Make technical articles accessible.

My take-away from that is that is as follows. As with the lead, the purpose the purpose of the infobox is to provide a stand-alone summary of the article. Consequently, as with the lead, the above guidance should provide. In the infobox we should generally have fewer links than would appear in the text of most article. And in the case of technical articles, we should seek to have more informal language in the infobox (which of course would require fewer links than formal language would require).

I therefore have a counter-proposal --that the guidance be modified to change, in the above block quote, "the lead section" in each instance to "the lead section and the infobox", with corresponding grammatical revisions.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The lede and the infobox are two completely separate entities, often duplicating information. However, they serve two difference purposes; the infobox if someone needs to quickly establish certain facts, while the lede is to set the stage for the rest of the article, and, if needed, summarize details that cannot be quantized into an infobox section. Linking within the lede needs to be handled like linking the rest of prose (link density, etc.) but the infobox is not meant to be read like prose, and thus the requirements or limitations on linking are quite different. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they are distinct. But for our purposes here, it is a distinction without a difference. Their purposes and goals are similar.

I'm unclear what the basis is for what you assert are their respective purposes. Or whether you came up with those descriptions yourself. But I think looking at the WP descriptions of the purposes of the two may be illuminating.

Per WP:LEAD, "The lead ... lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article." Per WP:IBT, "An infobox template is ... commonly used in articles to present certain summary or overview information about the subject." Their relevant purposes as the same -- to present certain summary information. I therefore see the rationale that supports de-linking especially in the lede as one that sensibly applies to the infobox as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They are not the same. Again - one is meant to quickly summarize details in a single glance, the other is to establish what the article and the framework of the article is about. They may share information but how it is presented and why it is presented that way serves two very different purposes. --MASEM (t) 05:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll just direct you to my prior post. Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong support as far as infoboxes are concerned. Tables are a different matter, but infoboxes have a de facto second role as a kind of navigation boxes. If we deny them this second role, we are not going to get less infoboxes (something that I would support, but unfortunately very unlikely), but we are going to get more navboxes. Hans Adler 17:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Links to dates or years

The current section gives plenty of examples when linking to a date or year is not recommended. Is there any situation in which it would be appropriate to do so (besides articles in the Wikipedia namespace like Wikipedia:Linking ) ? V (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the easy answer is that all articles that themselves are on chronological topics are exempt from the normal test ("germane", etc.). This is unfortunate, since it almost certainly wastes the linking system throughout the article, and given that there's usually a navbox at the top, I can't see the point. However, it was a necessary compromise, I'm afraid. Tony (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. V (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Another vague idea for building links

I'm still working on trying a better formalization of the previous idea I had about linking (that is: we should offer links like a tourist agency offers directs to local and distance locals), and another nebulous idea came to me.

Basically, we can likely classify links in prose among two categories:

Bi-directional links. That is, if I click a link in an article, and the link is appropriate, then in the linked article, there should be a reverse link. This should be the case for things like movie stars and movies (eg the proverbial Kevin Bacon chain game) and generally other things that involve specific people, places, or things. But it may be true for other categories. Note that this includes short detours; Ronald Reagan should link to President of the United States, but the link back is through a one-step-removed subarticle, List of Presidents of the United States. This could also be through directly related categories or the like as well.
Uni-directional links, where by clicking the link you get to a page that you cannot get back to that page without random clicking around to new topics. (as opposed to jumping down into a sub-article). Sure, a back button can be used on the browser, but this is strictly thinking about how prose and links are presented.

Bi-directional links are good. I cannot see a case where, as long as the prose in either article is not forced to include the return link, such a link should be discouraged (save for cases of common place names). In my tourist agency scheme above, the "near"/local links are more than likely to be more bi-directional.

Uni-directional links are not necessary bad, but they are ones that need to have high value and context to take the reader off the path for a good intended reason. This would be about equivalent to my "far" links, though I would argue most poor links on WP are these uni-directional links that are only "intermediate", linking to common english terms that really don't need to be linked.

Again, how to formalize and use all this, I don't know yet. But, I am throwing it out there to brainstorm. --MASEM (t) 23:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I've been having thoughts along the same lines. Something which cannot justify its reciprocal backlink, such as those delinked here, is overlinked with respect to that link/article. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that most (i.e. more than 50%) of the times, A should link B if and only if B should link A, but I can see lots of exceptions. For example, I can see the point of linking to Dirac delta function from particle decay, but not the other way round. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, if its not clear from my statement, uni-directional links are not always bad, particularly if you're linked from an article that has a specific example of an abstract topic, that topic having so many possible examples that a full list would be indiscriminate (your example would be as such). Also, I would still consider nearly every proper noun as a link (barring common geography aspects), and in many cases these could end up as uni-directional. (eg a movie article may mention other actors that tried for a role, but its unlikely that the actor article will mention the failed attempt at the role unless it's a famous one like Stolz in Back to the Future). But my instincts say that the best uni-directional links are ones that are the obscure terms that aren't common english or ideas. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
  - I get it now. That could go in a footnote after "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article", if someone could find a decent wording. As for the point on proper nouns, the "geographical places" in "articles about geographic places that are likely to be unfamiliar" could be replaced with "persons, places, etc." or something like that. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 16:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reminder of our obligations to maintain social harmony at styleguides

Not to make a big deal of this, but I think we should take heed of ArbCom's view, recently reiterated, that the stability of styleguide pages and the maintenance of harmony on their talk pages are a serious consideration. I include myself in this respect. Tony (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Proper nouns as a "special case"

There's some cleanup I can see in the language given that right now, we do mention the geographical linking in the first section but it seems like the black sheep there. I suggest we can formalize the idea into a "Special case" which would be something like:

Proper nouns

Proper nouns - named people, places, and things - should always be linked in prose where there is an article about them on Wikipedia. Their linking should follow the same style guidelines for other general links, such as primarily only linking the first use only. We do this because we cannot presume that the average English reader will know of people or others that may be extremely well known in one region but not in another. The only exception to these are very common geographic names that are known worldwide, which include (but are not limited to):

Continent and ocean names
Most country names
Most state or providence or other subdivisions of a nation in primarily English-speaking countries (for example Kansas, Ontario, Wales)
Most large cities worldwide (for example, New York City, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing, or Sydney)
Other significantly large geographic features, such as the Himalayas, the Amazon, or the Nile.

In most articles, these are used in prose as a descriptor ("John was born in Florida...", "Jane traveled through Europe...", "ACME is located in Los Angeles..") and linking these common English terms breaks the flow of the prose just as with other poorly-chosen links. There are exceptions here, primarily for articles about geographical or political entities, in which other countries or other geographical features now will be more germane to the article.

If a proper noun does not yet have an article, but likely should have one, consider adding a red link (discussed below).

Not perfect language, but starting points for an addition. --MASEM (t) 13:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the spirit, but probably it could use one tenth as many words, and give some rationale e.g. "because their referent cannot be figured out from context". Also, I think that there might be cases when names of extremely well-known individuals (e.g. Adolf Hitler) needn't be linked. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 14:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

What about this (intended to replace the last bullet in "What generally should be linked"):

Most proper names of persons, places etc. with an article on Wikipedia (or notable enough for one), unless there is a more specific link nearby (as in Thimphu, Bhutan), because a reader unfamiliar with a proper name cannot figure out from context whom or what it refers to, and would have to look it up. On the other hand, names of ~~most~~major countries, major subdivisions of primarily English-speaking countries, cities of world-wide importance etc. can be presumed to be known by almost all readers, and should only be linked from articles on closely related topics.

― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:08, 3 May 2010 (edited at 15:51, 3 May 2010)

"Proper nouns - named people, places, and things - should always be linked in prose where there is an article about them on Wikipedia." I am very nervous about such a sweeping statement. And conversely, "Most country names" is probably too broad, since "Chad" and "Bhutan" and "East Timor" are in most contexts not sufficiently familiar to most English-speakers. The problem is determining the boundary between the two categories Is there some reason to encourage people to link proper nouns? I see no evidence that proper nouns are not linked at the moment. The harder task is to get editors to use their judgement when a proper noun should probably not be linked. I would like some mention of the issue of chain linking; there seems utterly no reason to bunch links that are progressively broader rather than linking just the most specific: "Caldmore, Walsall, England", not "Caldmore, Walsall, England"; and Brooklyn, New York; and National Theatre School of Canada, Montreal, Quebec (since a link to "Montreal" is at the top of the most specific link) .Tony (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a real concern with forcing users to go through another article to reach a relevant link. While it may not seem like a big deal to someone with a fast machine with a broadband connection, not everyone has such a setup, and there are still plenty of users with lower speed access, plus wireless access is neither neccessarily speedy nor cheap, so minimizing the number of clicks to access relevant information is a consideration we should take. That's not to say we should link everything, but a blanket process of not linking something because it is linked in the first paragraph of another, already linked article isn't a good idea. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The concern is valid, but the main reason why someone would follow the link Walsall in an article on a topic not directly related with the geography of England is to find out where Walsall is, and the article Caldmore also answers that. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well exactly: why provide two links, bunched, that give the same information. The top of the Walsall article is admirable in terms of explaining its location. Everything you'd want. Tony (talk) 03:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've tweaked my proposal to try and address your (Tony's) points. As for "I see no evidence that proper nouns are not linked at the moment", I've seen references in which the author is a world-leading expert in his field but his name was unlinked, giving no indication that he's not just another random scholar not notable enough for a WP article. ― ___A._di_M. (formerly Army1987) 15:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how Tony's suggestion is "forcing users to go through another article to reach a relevant link". Certainly in the examples given, there is only one relevant link: these are respectively Caldmore, Brooklyn, and National Theatre School of Canada. I really fail to see how chain-linking 'Walsall, England'; 'New York'; and National Theatre School of Canada, Montreal, Quebec respectivelt would be of actual service to readers - they may be relevant to Caldmore, Brooklyn, and National Theatre School of Canada respectively, but not to the central subject. Not only is it unsightly to have 2, 3, 4 links juxtaposed the likelihood of these being clicked on is infinitesimally small. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea, that idea goes back to what I was says as place names as descriptors and less about being the active noun or the like. The additional geographical names after the first most specific term are passive description of the place; depending on context, all the person needs to know is the specific term, and an idea of where it is (eg "The village of Caldwell in England" or "the National Theatre School of Canada in Montreal" (or "in Quebec") could both replace the set of chain-linked terms without any loss of meaning or ability to find out more.) --MASEM (t) 16:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) — Consolidating naming per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Poll Gnevin (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uncertain: While a persuasive case could be made that this is more of an editing guideline, the main MoS page has long had a section devoted to links that naturally connects to this more detailed treatment of the topic. On the other hand, our Wikipedia:List of guidelines indeed lists this as an editing guideline. I believe more opinion should be solicited.—DCGeist (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had always assumed this was part of the MoS; i.e., a sub-page. Like MOSNUM. It's news to me if it's not. Tony (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Same here does offer stylistic advise . Gnevin (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Make the move to MoS titling, and I'll clean up the references to it as an editing guideline.—DCGeist (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Linking part of a word

Reading quickly, I don't see any prohibition against appending a number after a linked word or acronym; the current article I'm copyediting has "Nakajima A1N2 fighters" (a specific version of the A1N fighter). Is the language on this page? Should it be? (The problem here is that the Mediawiki softerware automatically makes any letters that are appended outside a link appear to be part of the link, but not numbers.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there doesn't seem to be anything at all that says a link should be a whole word (or several whole words), though the examples imply it. Myself, I'd pipe [[Nakajima A1N fighter|Nakajima A1N2 fighters]]. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

An article that links to itself, to a section farther down in the article

Somehow I got the idea that a wikipedia article is not supposed to link to itself. I recently came across an article in which the lead contained several links to various sections of the article below the lead. Is this ok? Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is clear where the links go, yes. A. di M. (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a specific example at the foot of WP:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Link_specificity. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

tables

I have restored what was the guideline, but was replaced with no discussion here. Briefly, the reason for linking in each row of a table is that we should not expect readers to go hunting around the table for the spot where the term is linked. That is the same regardless of whether it is "very long" or sortable. In very short tables with only a few rows, it may well be appropriate to only link once, but that is more a case of ignoring all rules and using common sense than a justification for turning the policy on its head. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was going to be a new effort at cooperation here

This is disappointing. The page itself is being changed in ways that clearly do not have consensus. It is a sensitive issue, and needs to be discussed here before any change is made. I'd have thought that was obvious. Discussion by edit summary is not an acceptable way to push and pull the style-guide page, which should remain stable where there is no consensus to change it. If an editor wants to propose a change that is sensitive, please raise it here first. Tony (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While I regret not having the time for a full post here earlier today, I think it is fair to say that the edit summary was very clear as to the purpose of the change. To recap, the change involved rewording:

"avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links"

to read as

"avoid adding obvious or redundant links"

This edit makes no change as to the substance and intent of the guideline, but removes the highly opinionated terms "cluttering" and "useless" that do not fit with the professional style used throughout our guidelines and policies. Furthermore, the change itself should be self-evident, not "sensitive"; we have agreed on avoiding this type of loaded language on the guideline talk page, so it should be even less acceptable in the actual guideline. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it seems to be a more professional and concise way of making much the same point, which ties in with the wish to moderate the language being used. Not really worth everyone heading off down another discussion tangent over it, surely. I know I've just added to that tangent, but you know what I mean, as they say. N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A useless wikilink is by definition either redundant (already linked) or obvious (commonly known term), so the word useless is superfluous, and I don't mind its removal. As for "cluttering", I don't see how that term is "highly opinionated" in this context. If a link is redundant and/or obvious, then surely it is unhelpful and adding to the sea of blue (if you will), and therefore "cluttering" the text. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by Epeefleche; in my opinion, this is of a different nature than the change I made, as it restores the problematic language and then adds "appropriate" in, well, inappropriate places. I have left some of the changes that do not alter the substance of the guideline. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the edit seems more professional. I think the only remaining issue is whether the edit materially changes the message. Tony, do you think it does? If you think it does, let’s discuss and arrive at an all-hands consensus as to whether there really is a change in meaning and how to go forward from there. Greg L (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Considering that the wording change does not have universal support yet, I'm inclined to revert to the original wording until we can all agree on the exact change that needs to be made (if at all). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Katz--I'm disappointed with you. I just made a number of clarifying changes that all improve the article, including one that I would think you (though not Tony) would like -- encouraging linking in cases that they were not formerly encouraged (but which make sense). Yet all you can do is revert in an edit-warrior fashion the part that more clearly and accurately states what the guideline calls for--perhaps because you feel it eviscerates the POV you are battling over. You really might want to consider not biting the editors who don't have a dog in this fight, along with those who do -- your battleground mentality edit warring is not appreciated. I've not had sufficient coffee today, so perhaps my words here are harsh, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by reverting perfectly reasonable edits by a (relatively) uninvolved editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect to "biting", what was clearly frustrating was that you restored the clearly opinionated text, without even mentioning that you were doing so. You repeated that action the second time, again without mentioning it. You'll have to forgive me if I seem frustrated by that. With your comments in mind, however, I have removed only the problematic text ("cluttering" and "useless") that I originally intended to fix, and left the rest of your changes intact (other than correcting a very minor spelling error). --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aargh, missed my own notes. I did pull "appropriate" from the very first line of the page; I can see your point for the second instance where you added it, but in the first case the text is illustrating the concept of linking itself. Hopefully, this works for you. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look at the clutter conversation -- I'm not sure I understand the issue fully. I simply made that aspect of my change because IMHO it makes good sense (and I have difficulty understanding what a spat about it could be about). It was just one of my many changes. The use of appropriate is IMHO appropriate in the fist sentences -- the guideline discusses the fact that some links are appropriate, others not. Linking through inappropriate hyperlinks is not an important feature of Wikipedia. Your deletion of my clarification suggests that it is. That's at odds with what the article says. I had thought that if anyone would find reason to question any aspect of my edit, it would be Tony musing as to whether my add suggesting linking (in places it wasn't formerly suggested) might be something we can discuss. That instead you should be the one biting me, and biting me for of all things this, annoys me, and suggests to me that you are not acting in the best of faith here, but rather approaching this page with a battleground mentality. Of course I could be wrong, and if I am I apologize, but I wanted to be frank with you as to how your revert here landed in this part of the world.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Include info on intra-article links?

Hi there, just a suggestion here to include information on intra-article links, so that editors will be better informed on this kind of linking. These links send readers from one part of an article to another part. If you want a reply from me, just ring me up at my talk page. Regards, AngChenrui ^Talk 03:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this was discussed earlier at this talk page, but the relevant guidance is already included in the last sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#Link specificity. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Should the information be made more overt and obvious to editors? I tried on a previous occasion to find info on linking within an article, but couldn't find any then. Thanks, AngChenrui ^Talk 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ang, can you suggest more obvious target words to use? Tony (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Announcement: new judge of the Silliest Wikilink of the Month Awards

Friends, it is with disappointment that I announce that His Grace the Duke of Waltham is no longer able to judge the monthly awards. However, we are in luck: Ceoil has kindly agreed to take over. Please see the announcement here. Tony (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic and not funny. Thanks for wasting my time, it gives me new impetus to do something useful. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not meant to be funny. It's a good-faith attempt to encourage excellence in linking practice on WP. Thanks for your concern. Tony (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair play, but to me it did the opposite. I come to MoS including its talk pages to get advice about how to make articles conform with MoS not to snigger about the worst link, a competition I neither no nor care about. You riled me and probably accidentally. It is my fault with being so keen, but had your style been in an article I would have found seventeen ways of saying that is out of order. You shouldn't really snigger at editors getting things wrong sometimes. If you take the job of fixing bad links – and God knows in good faith we all sometimes get the wrong links – you could be modest about it and not snigger behind other's backs. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling ClueBot will delete my remark for saying "s n i g g e r." because it includes another word (which I also don't find objectionable in the right context). If it then reverts my edits, complain to it, not me. (I have in the past, with no success.)

It's not so much a snigger as a recognition of the hard work (and careful judgement) of the many editors who clean up overlinked common terms in our articles. It's a job that can't be done automatically (beyond a small proportion, even then with care): it's contextual, mostly. I suppose sometimes we do smile at the linking of some words—it's hard not to. Better than being irritated by the task. And the original editor? I don't think anyone has ever bothered to go through article histories to find this: it's not the point. Tony (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard work, anyone who contributes to Wikipedia in any way deserves a slap on the back. I also agree with you that a lot of this work cannot be done automatically (and sometimes bots do more harm than good, then the fun starts telling them). So, I got riled without needing to. But it did rile me.

Best wishes, y'all keep up the hard work. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Books and television titles

I've had a look through the page and can't see anything specific on linking book and programme titles within an article. Would it be the case that they can only link to an article on those books/programmes? An example would be the Keith Floyd article where there are numerous links throughout the individual titles. Thanks. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just looks wrong to me - remove the links. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cod, isn't it good, direct, efficient linking practice to do this? I'd say they are high-value links. They are articles on those books and programs, aren't they? Tony (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. A general rule of thumb is that one always links to proper names outside of what should be obvious geographic locations, since while one can presume a basic understanding of the english language while on en.wiki, one cannot presume any deep knowledge of people, books, shows, etc. But this of course assumes blue links or reasonable expected articles-to-be redlinks; if there's no article or no chance for an article, a link isn't necessary. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tony and Masem. Scrolling down, though, I see Keith Floyd#Cookery shows, which has rather silly links. Food? Italy? Africa? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I believe Jack is referring to something like this example:

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - where only partial linking of the title takes place.
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - I don't think anybody has a problem with linking to the correct article.

Or as another example

Coming to America and not linking to the actual article on the book or movie.

I'd say, remove the partial linking. It's just gets silly. --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what I was referring to - just looks wrong. Codf1977 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What if...

The article encourages us to use red links to link future articles if they are relevant to the content. Let's say I want to put a link to the 1848 revolution in Germany, but there is an article only about the 1484 revolution not the former. (Hypothetical) Should I prefer the red link or the less detailed valid link ?

Sincerely NikitaUtiu ^{talk contributions} 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Red link. It's difficult to imagine how, in the circumstances you describe, how the 1484 revolution link could be a reasonable substitute for the 1848 revolution. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
(I'm assuming the "1484" was a typo.) The link has to go to the most specific place; then if the red link bothers you, you could create a redirect from there to the relevant section of the general article, and add it to Category:Redirects with possibilities. A. di M. (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was a typo, yes. So, you're saying that I should link it to the 1848 revolutin in Germany article and create a redirect until there will be such an article available ? NikitaUtiu ^{talk contributions} 13:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The new exception for repeated links for "See also" and "External links"

After having seen many helpful "See also" and "External links" sections deleted by well intended editors, attempting to "tidy up" articles, I personally have often been frustrated by this. Often in lengthy articles, these sections are life-savers (well actually huge time-savers) for me and I don't understand the need to delete them in so many articles, or to bar links found above from being repeated in them. To me, the logic of keeping these sections and allowing them to have doubled links in them seems to weigh heavily in favor of this, rather than the apparent logic that we might possibly consume too many gigabytes for this, or possibly make an article 'look' overly long.

As such, I've gone ahead and added this exception for "doubled links" to the list of "Repeated links exceptions". Any comments on this new exception would be much appreciated. Thanks,

Scott P. (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've seen what you've done at Gary Renard. It seems to me that in this relatively short article, you'd be pushing the boat out saying that such links are 'life-savers'. These links are but repeat links of a secondary subject already very prominently linked in the lead, and I feel are strictly unnecessary. More specifically, I feel that the choice of links to be included in the 'See also' section ought to be those which are relevant but cannot be worked into the article, or which are inadequately piped, but whose inclusion would add value to the subject --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Navboxes would be a great way to be used as time-savers for navigation, but hiding them below references, "further reading", and external links makes them nearly useless for this purpose. But putting them before references is something which the fellows at WP:LAYOUT will never allow you to do. A. di M. (talk) 15:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I also tend to disagree with Scott. I am one of those editors who reduces or removes See Also sections when they do nothing but repeat links already included in body of article. I have gone ahead and reverted your additions to the MOS until we reach consensus.TheRingess (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
- I also tend to remove or reduce See Also sections when they simply repeat links unless they are important major topics directly related to the primary subject but which have not been directly mentioned in the article. It's also important to keep in mind that external links are governed by WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Buddhipriya (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

So far this looks like I lose. One for, one neutral, and three opposed. Argh! Apparently I'm in a small minority on this. My wife says I must have OCD, because I always like to have things in the same places where I can easily find them. Perhaps she is right. Now where were those slippers again???? Scott P. (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for minimising redundancy (in links and in words). I am very demanding of readers, expecting that they actually read an article, not just flash through it or treat it like bumping against a goal post. Tony (talk) 23:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I too like to read an article thoroughly once. But when I remember that there was a certain link in an article I read yesterday, or last month, I feel a bit cheated when some well-intended cleaner-uper has removed or pared down a previously good "See also" section, just to assure that I must once again re-read the entire article each time I refer back when all I wanted was the link. So much for the wonders of the speedy internet. Hah! Scott P. (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You could just type it into the search box? :-) Tony (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

. I don't know how far I should go in Scott's edit history to find the sort of concrete example used to justify adding repeat links to the 'See also' section – a large article with a link so deeply embedded it would be difficult to find again. What he did at Georgina Lightning was IMHO another set of redundant linking of easy-to-find information which might make me more likely to ignore 'See also' sections in future when I see them. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

This is nuts....why are you making Wikipedia harder to use? If someone can't find a link because it's been tidied up, you've done a real disservice. Not all out readers are familiar with how best to use Wikipedia, and to be very demanding is nuts, flat out bonkers. Wikipedia should be easy to use, for everyone...and that includes easy to find links. Anyone reducing see also lists overly aggressively is imposing their personal reading style and usage habits on everyone reading Wikipedia...it's not up to you to train our readers, it's up to you to make Wikipedia easy for everyone to use regardless of their level of proficiency, good grief. RxS (talk) 04:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, And so obvious. But still the insane crusade of stripping links continues, making Wikipedia harder to use. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not as insane as you might care to suggest. People now (as opposed to two decades ago) realise that there can be noise pollution, light pollution, and there is such a thing as link pollution for web pages. Fortunately, we don't actually see much of a problem elsewhere in cyberspace, as the commercial world is well aware of potential problems caused by excessive linking. It's one important function of webmasters, who optimise linking among other things. Only here, at 'the encyclopaedia anyone can edit'©™ are there still a significant minority which appears to be ignorant of that fact. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

And that is the problem: that you, and Tony, see this is a "fact", and that anyone who disagrees is merely ignorant and needs "educating". --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Peas porridge hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot 9 days old. Well some like it hot, and obviously others like it cold, and since four like it cold and only three like it hot that apparently makes us three a bunch of orangutans, at least in one person's view. Let them have their cold porridge, I've got other trees to swing from. Scott P. (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I have some room-temperature peas porridge? A. di M. (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you two avoid emotive, exaggerated statements and analogies? Accusing other editors of being "nuts, flat out bonkers", is not helping calm, rational debate. And Ohconfucius, I wouldn't use the word "ignorant" for a second. People have their own point of view. Please tone down the language. Tony (talk) 08:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

- Could you, Tony, avoid making statements such as You could just type it into the search box? :-) since, by that logic, we should remove all links? Of course you were told this sometime ago, but to no effect. :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

My statement was not a breach of WP:CIVIL. It is not much to ask that people treat each other politely. Suggesting that the search box is an alternative to inserting low-value links is a perfectly valid argument; I'd like you to consider it. There is the matter of diluting high-value links, which should be of concern to all of us. It is very difficult to get readers to click on any links at all. Part of the service we offer to readers is to select the most useful links. Otherwise they'll just ignore all of them. Tony (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Who said it was a breach of civility? You're getting paranoid. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Back to the topic, I oppose the suggested (and reverted change), being one of those who find huge chunks of repeated links unhelpful, unnecessary, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Pros and cons

I would like to see a clear listing of pros and cons of repeated links in see also sections, since the discussion above got a bit astray. I'll try to provide some below from the statements above and my own opinions. Please add more if I missed anything.

for

Readers don't have to actually read the article to find them
Some above say we should demand effort from readers; some say we should make it easy. Personally, I don't think we should be making judgments on the amount of effort readers should have, but rather on the practical usefulness of being able to skip reading the article. A previous proposal included this, stated as: The "See also" section may repeat very important links from the article's body, but only if it is judged likely that a reader may use the page solely to find the other link (and hence, may not read the entire article in order to find it).

I personally don't think that, with the increasing problem of information overload (of which Wikipedia is part!), we shouldn't stand in readers' way to other articles if that's what they are seeking.
It's what a random reader people might expect of a See also section
The very expression "see also" conveys "relevant related links", not "relevant links that weren't used in the text" (especially since most of them will be included in the text).

against

If a reader is searching for a different term, he might as well use the search box
This was argued against, above, as being a rationale that would remove all links. Besides agreeing with that, I add that sometimes the reader might not remember (or even know) the precise title of the article they seek. A navbox would serve this purpose, but what about when there's only a handful (say, 5 or less) tightly related topics?

"the search box is an alternative to inserting low-value links", Tony says. But the point is to add high-value ones (if they're important enough to be mentioned in the article text, they certainly don't lose their importance by being repeated. They might become redundant, but not uninmportant -- and arguably still remain useful)
It might amount to link pollution
I'd say that this is another issue, one of too many links in the see also section, rather than redundant links. The amount of links ultimately boils down to common sense. There's even a {{too many see alsos}} already in use.

Also, I would like to point out some arguments from past discussions which I think describe well the need for discussing this exception:

(...) by looking at your counter-proposal, with its detailed exceptions and exceptions within the exceptions, I cannot help but think that what you wrote there is a bot. In other words, it's simply calling for somebody to say, "Hey, that's a nice functional specification, I'll write an AWB after it." Which is exactly what you don't want to happen. The counter-proposal boils down to: "Avoid linking to the same article twice within a single article and use common sense." Since the latter part is implied in any WP guideline, the present version is the one I support. (...) PizzaMargherita
the very fact that we haven't yet seen AWB-enabled changes tells me that in large part, the existing wording is working as designed and that readers do understand that this is a question of balance and judgment. Rossami
my formal training was in computational linguistics, so I've thought about these issues a lot—and that background makes me very conscious of the limitations of technology when dealing with natural language. I don't think my counterproposal is very amenable to a bot. You're right that it's a careful specification—I think we should strive for that when possible in style rules, as it cuts down on disputes. TreyHarris

These points, and the fact that the current rules are indeed being applied my many as hard-and-fast principles (and yes, made their way to AWB), make it clear, imo, that a specific exception is in order for cases where the benefit exceeds the drawbacks. --Waldir ^talk 13:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I like see also sections. They are useful, irrespective of what links appear in the rest of the article and should be independent of it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but even though we agree on the issue, I must say that "I like X" is precisely the kind of language I was hoping to avoid with this subsection. You say that they are useful (which I agree with) but don't back your claim with specific examples/use cases. That unfortunately makes it easy for other people to dismiss your comments... --Waldir ^talk 15:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Do we have to cite specific example to make a generic point? I doubt citing specific examples would help, given how this article is just (widely divergent) opinions, not facts. I could have explained my reason in more detail, though. So.....

.... I like see also sections. It is useful to have the most pertinent or interesting links collected together in one place, without having to hunt through an article for links that only appear once, disparately.

--Michael C. Price ^talk 15:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The name says it all. It implies that other subjects which may be relevant to the article's subject, but are not dealt with or linked to, may be linked there. Using this as another place to bury repeat links is really stretching tde definition. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Aside from the name, what is your objection?--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
  - The "See also" is of particular use where it is grammatically hard to insert a focused link in the main text without a deceptive pipe (Agriculture in France piped to "France", which I assure you no one will click on). I don't quite see your difficulty in "hunting down" links. Do you mean you've thought of the link target before you've come across it? My advice would be to read the article as a whole, or use the search box instantly if you wish. Tony (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    - You're welcome to your opinions, just as long as you realise they are just that, opinions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
      - And you yours. Thank you very much for expressing a view. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        Yes, my views are just opinions. Are you able to say the same, or are you going to claim that they are backed up by "studies" or some such pseudoscience? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        Oh, well… since you don’t seem to be in a constructive mood today, Michael and apparently seem anxious to come here, make oodles of waves, insist on having things your way, and flippantly dismiss others’ opinions as being “just opinions”; you, sir, are welcome to be tendentious, as long as you realize that Wikipedia’s policies do not forbid us from just completely ignoring you. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        
        Your "departure" didn't last long, did it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        My “departure” was in regard to the threads at the bottom of the page, on which no progress was being made because no one wanted to do what you insisted on: begin linking the holy crap out of articles again. I see that your nonsense springs eternal at old threads on this page.
        The metrics make sense to me too, Michael. There is a clear trend among all the different-language Wikipedias to reduce the links in articles to just those required to enhance the readers’ understanding of the subject matter. After rising to absurd proportions, the proportion of words linked in articles has declined on en.Wikipedia by one-third in the last four years. The downward trend has been consistent as editors all across the project realized we had created articles that looked seas of blue turds. These statistics apparently don’t please you. As they say in the military: “So sad – Too bad.” Greg L (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        Those are not the pseudoscientific claims I was referring to. If you're going to play dumb over claims made in the past here, that's your business. As for the claims you are now making, so what? If link density has gone down that is no argument that it should continue, or even that it was wise in the first place. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        Playing dumb? Well, you sure are obnoxious, aren’t you? The link density is going down because the community wants it that way and doesn’t see things your way. This place is ruled by consensus. Period. Get that through your head. And “consensus” does not equate to “Whatever Michael wants ‘cause he hangs onto issues like a pit bull on someone’s throat.” You don’t get your way be being tendentious beyond all comprehension and flogging a dead horse until the heat death of the universe. You think the current practices on Wikipedia are unwise. Well, that’s all *extra special* but doesn’t matter since precious too-few people share your view that everyone should start re-linking the living snot out of articles. And why do they feel that way? Because doing so would be an unwise, lousy technical writing practice. I can’t help it if you can’t see that. Greg L (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        Your carefully reasoned response did at least give me a good laugh. Thanks.
        
        But if you're so sure consensus is with you, why the hysterical reaction and violation of AGF to the suggestion of an RfC? I'm not the only one to have pointed out that a small cabal of 4-5 editors here does not amount to a consensus. We shall see. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        I don’t know to whom you think is in violation of WP:AGF, but I hope you aren’t suggesting it is me. I know you mean well. But like any club with an open membership (Wikipedia so qualifies), it gets a small but regular stream of people convinced they have stumbled upon a better way to spin gold yarn and who can’t fathom why the natives here don’t start hoping up on down with our spears exclaiming how “The dude in the pith helmet has shown us the light.” All the other-language Wikipedias are experiencing a drop in the link percentage and en.Wikipedia’s rate of decline is right smack in the middle of the pack. You wanna change the world and are acting all frustrated. I can’t help that. A handful of us bother to give you the time of day; I guarantee you there is an ocean of others out there who quietly embrace the reasoning and aren’t suckers for coming to this talk page to get a belly full of witty banter with you. Greg L (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        GregL has a point although I don't like the way he expresses it. If you want an RfC so much, you don't need anybody's permission, especially after this much discussion. Whether anyone wants to comment further at the RfC, is something else. Art LaPella (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
      - Michael, everything that drops from my lips is "my opinion". Tony (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
        yes, but in the past your opinions were claimed to be supported by "research" and "metrics", which we now know to be groundless. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: "aid understanding, avoid obvious"

The guideline says "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid adding obvious or redundant links", which seems a desirable objective.

However, I think some mention in the guideline should be given to who the potential readership is. For someone who is a native speaker of English, immersed in the western way of life, reasonably knowledgeable, reasonably well-educated, and immersed in a culture where the Abrahamic religions, or one of them, predominate, many "obvious" things may not be so for someone from an oriental or African background, maybe still in school, maybe never having visited a large town, with limited English and no connection to the Abrahamic religions. I don't know if the assumed readership of English Wikipedia is discussed everywhere, but it would seem (particularly with the de-facto status of English as a major international language) that English Wikipedia should cater for anybody who might want to try to use it, but requiring some modest proficiency with the English language - Wikipedia isn't a language school. The golden rule can perhaps be adapted ("do unto other as you would have them do unto you" ==> "write for others as clearly as you'd expect them to write for you"): link things that are part of your lifestyle in the same way as you'd hope others would clarify that in their context Sunday is just a day of the week like any other, that killing anything alive (e.g., flies) is considered sinful, that using or wasting water implies a long walk to get more.

My particular opinion of the readership we are writing to may not be the consensus position, but we do need to know who we are writing for (whatever group this is) when deciding what to link.

Pol098 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On one hand, it turns out that most readers of the English Wikipedia are from the US or the Commonwealth; on the other hand, depending on that is a bad idea. A. di M. (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC) A. di M. (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding double linking within the text of an article makes perfect sense to me. Double links there do indeed make it more difficult for me to focus more on the text, which is why I am there, and less on all of the hyperlinks. But for me, avoiding any double linking between the text and an article's two link sections seems to me to be an exercise in following the letter of the rules, but missing their 'spirit'. One of the key 'spirits' of Wikipedia seems to me to be trying to be as 'helpful' as we reasonably can to as many readers as possible. Trying to force typical readers to reread the text several times by refusing to set-up link sections that are maximally comprehensive and helpful, seems to me to be a bit authoritarian, that is all. Anyone who doesn't like these link sections can easily ignore them, they are at the end of the article. But anyone who prefers to use them, under the current guidelines, is left with a couple of generally useless links at the end of the article, and having to rescan the entire article to find the link he or she may want. Are the current guidelines, which tend to discourage having a truly comprehensive link section in an article, being helpful to a typical reader, authoritarian, or what? Scott P. (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the guidelines are too authoritarian and deletionist. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This notion of "link lots of items just in case a seven-year-old Moroccan schoolgirl happens to be reading an article" misses a critical aspect that has played out on the English WP over the past five years: linking is both a cost and a benefit for readers. Once the signal-to-noise ratio of the blue links reaches a certain point, readers are even less likely to click on a link than they are in a judiciously linked text. We owe it to readers to present them with high-value, not low-value links, and to do that we assume readers have a working knowledge of English and of the anglosphere. Otherwise, en.WP would end up like WP.fr, WP.it, and others, where text is an unseemly blue/black mess. They are six or seven years behind us: no proper guidelines for what to link and what not to; so like sheep, editors link everything in sight. On WP.fr, for example, "France" is linked on every occasion, as though they were slaves to a blind, unthinking formula. Why? It is ridiculous. Above all, let us not return to the old techie notion that an item has to be linked to be accessible. The seven-year-old Moroccan schoolgirl, I'm afraid, might need to type a few things into the search box if she sees an item she really wants to browse that is not blue. Or to keep an English dictionary handy at her side or on her desktop. Wikilinking is significantly weakened through dilution. Tony (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with "a working knowledge of English", but "of the anglosphere" stretches it too much: for example, I wouldn't assume a Singaporean and an Irishman to have much knowledge of each other's culture and way of life, even though they're both literate native English speakers. A. di M. (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Native speakers are part of the anglosphere. The Irish are a quintessential part of it. Tony (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that any speaker can only be presumed to be familiar with their own part of the anglosphere, but not with all of it. I guess that if you pick ten native English speaker from (say) New Zealand at random and ask them what the capital of (say) Guyana (an English-speaking country) is, most of them will have no idea. So, unlinking Georgetown on the grounds that readers of the English Wikipedia can be assumed to have a working knowledge of the anglosphere would be silly. A. di M. (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. English is such a widely spoken language that presuming inherent knowledge of a topic related to an English-speaking country just because the reader happens to be living in a country where English is the main language is presumptuous to the excess. Despite what's been said before, there's more than a half-dozen countries where English is widely spoken, and where it is the first language. We can't necessarily presume anything; to do such would only reinforce Wikipedia's systemic bias.oknazevad (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention non-native speakers. 2.5% of readers are from India, 1.8% from Germany, 1.1% from the Netherlands[1] and it sounds unlikely that many of them are native speakers. Many of them might just use English as a lingua franca, communicating with people most of whom aren't native speakers either, and they might have no "working knowledge of the anglosphere" nor any desire or purpose of acquiring one: probably most of them would have no idea of where Saskatchewan is. A. di M. (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

←Linking "Georgetown" might be fine, but not "Guyana" straight after it, as though an address on an envelope. That would be a chain-link. Tony (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't disagree, too much, though that article is at Georgetown, Guyana, for disambiguation purposes. But that falls under the category of redundant links. It is when we presume that someone knows that Georgetown is the capital of Guyana just because they're a (native) English speaker that we run into trouble.oknazevad (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The only time you wouldn't link "Saskatchewan" would be if there were a more specific link next to it (say "Saskatoon"), or if it had already been linked previously in the article. Tony (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Linking words in quotations

Are there any special rules for linking in quotations (quoted passages)? Should they be avoided altogether? I give here a random example. In an article about, let's say, "Christian morals" would the links to sin and death in the following quotation be OK? "For everyone belongs to me, the parent as well as the child—both alike belong to me. The one who sins is the one who will die.—Ezek. 18:1-4, TNIV" -Mycomp (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I never use links in quotations. Instead, I may add what seems to be the relevant link in the "See also" section. Sometimes the link is to a disambiguation page. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 16:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed more broadly at MT:MOS in the last year, with an increasing number of editors leaning toward permitting links inside quotations when they will be very helpful for reader comprehension, and removing links where they don't add much. E.g. a link to Lilliput is generally reader-helpful in a quotation that include the word "lilliputian" because most readers have no idea what it means, while a link to "mathematics" is not likely to aid readers and will just distract from parsing the quotation in context. It's important that when such links are used they do not introduce any kind of bias or PoV pushing, per WP:NPOV, nor push readers toward a novel interpretation or synthesis per WP:NOR, but such problems are not very common and easy to spot and fix. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Major announcement: the Silliest Wikilink of the Month awards

Resolved

– Just an FYI; no MOS issues to address.

Our judge, Ceoil, will soon announce the winners of the awards for August, July and May 2010, and at the end of this month will announce the winner for September.

He has agreed that we might then change the focus of the competition from individual wikilinks and small groups of wikilinks to whole articles that are badly overlinked. Inevitably, those valuable editors who perform gnoming services are confronted with overlinking throughout whole articles (particularly of "dictionary" items). In almost all cases, this has arisen earlier in WP's history, when there was no coherent strategy for maximising the utility of the wikilinking system. It's a lot of work to clean it up, and the Silliwilli awards was set up to encourage this work.

Therefore, we have decided that from October 2010 onwards the awards should be judged in terms of whole articles. Competitors will still be asked to list individual links (but expanded to six of the funniest, most useless, most inexplicable individual links in the article, as an example of the entry); however, the removal of overlinking from the whole article will be the sole determinant in the award. We expect this will reduce the number of entrants each month, which will compensate for the extra work by the judge in analysing the entries. Tony (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing green

Resolved

– Question answered.

Why is some of the text in this article showing up as green? In utter cluelessness, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

{{xt}} Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I pose a politely worded query in English and am answered with some kind of odd symbol? Curiouser and curiouser. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. The above template that I linked makes the text display in green font. It is used to highlight examples, I believe. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The main MoS has long used green text in Georgia to identify example text. Using italics or bold or whatever to identify examples doesn't work because sometimes the italics or bold is what's being demonstrated. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_110#An_idea:_markup_for_bad_examples was the first discussion about also using red text to distinguish wrong examples; there were others shortly after. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Linking → Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) — Consolidating naming per Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Poll Gnevin (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Uncertain: While a persuasive case could be made that this is more of an editing guideline, the main MoS page has long had a section devoted to links that naturally connects to this more detailed treatment of the topic. On the other hand, our Wikipedia:List of guidelines indeed lists this as an editing guideline. I believe more opinion should be solicited.—DCGeist (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had always assumed this was part of the MoS; i.e., a sub-page. Like MOSNUM. It's news to me if it's not. Tony (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Same here does offer stylistic advise . Gnevin (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. Make the move to MoS titling, and I'll clean up the references to it as an editing guideline.—DCGeist (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Linking part of a word

Reading quickly, I don't see any prohibition against appending a number after a linked word or acronym; the current article I'm copyediting has "Nakajima A1N2 fighters" (a specific version of the A1N fighter). Is the language on this page? Should it be? (The problem here is that the Mediawiki softerware automatically makes any letters that are appended outside a link appear to be part of the link, but not numbers.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there doesn't seem to be anything at all that says a link should be a whole word (or several whole words), though the examples imply it. Myself, I'd pipe [[Nakajima A1N fighter|Nakajima A1N2 fighters]]. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

An article that links to itself, to a section farther down in the article

Somehow I got the idea that a wikipedia article is not supposed to link to itself. I recently came across an article in which the lead contained several links to various sections of the article below the lead. Is this ok? Thanks, Xtzou (Talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is clear where the links go, yes. A. di M. (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a specific example at the foot of WP:Manual_of_Style_(linking)#Link_specificity. Si Trew (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

tables

I have restored what was the guideline, but was replaced with no discussion here. Briefly, the reason for linking in each row of a table is that we should not expect readers to go hunting around the table for the spot where the term is linked. That is the same regardless of whether it is "very long" or sortable. In very short tables with only a few rows, it may well be appropriate to only link once, but that is more a case of ignoring all rules and using common sense than a justification for turning the policy on its head. -Rrius (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was going to be a new effort at cooperation here

This is disappointing. The page itself is being changed in ways that clearly do not have consensus. It is a sensitive issue, and needs to be discussed here before any change is made. I'd have thought that was obvious. Discussion by edit summary is not an acceptable way to push and pull the style-guide page, which should remain stable where there is no consensus to change it. If an editor wants to propose a change that is sensitive, please raise it here first. Tony (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While I regret not having the time for a full post here earlier today, I think it is fair to say that the edit summary was very clear as to the purpose of the change. To recap, the change involved rewording:

"avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links"

to read as

"avoid adding obvious or redundant links"

This edit makes no change as to the substance and intent of the guideline, but removes the highly opinionated terms "cluttering" and "useless" that do not fit with the professional style used throughout our guidelines and policies. Furthermore, the change itself should be self-evident, not "sensitive"; we have agreed on avoiding this type of loaded language on the guideline talk page, so it should be even less acceptable in the actual guideline. --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, it seems to be a more professional and concise way of making much the same point, which ties in with the wish to moderate the language being used. Not really worth everyone heading off down another discussion tangent over it, surely. I know I've just added to that tangent, but you know what I mean, as they say. N-HH talk/edits 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A useless wikilink is by definition either redundant (already linked) or obvious (commonly known term), so the word useless is superfluous, and I don't mind its removal. As for "cluttering", I don't see how that term is "highly opinionated" in this context. If a link is redundant and/or obvious, then surely it is unhelpful and adding to the sea of blue (if you will), and therefore "cluttering" the text. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by Epeefleche; in my opinion, this is of a different nature than the change I made, as it restores the problematic language and then adds "appropriate" in, well, inappropriate places. I have left some of the changes that do not alter the substance of the guideline. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the edit seems more professional. I think the only remaining issue is whether the edit materially changes the message. Tony, do you think it does? If you think it does, let’s discuss and arrive at an all-hands consensus as to whether there really is a change in meaning and how to go forward from there. Greg L (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Considering that the wording change does not have universal support yet, I'm inclined to revert to the original wording until we can all agree on the exact change that needs to be made (if at all). Dabomb87 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Katz--I'm disappointed with you. I just made a number of clarifying changes that all improve the article, including one that I would think you (though not Tony) would like -- encouraging linking in cases that they were not formerly encouraged (but which make sense). Yet all you can do is revert in an edit-warrior fashion the part that more clearly and accurately states what the guideline calls for--perhaps because you feel it eviscerates the POV you are battling over. You really might want to consider not biting the editors who don't have a dog in this fight, along with those who do -- your battleground mentality edit warring is not appreciated. I've not had sufficient coffee today, so perhaps my words here are harsh, but I don't think you're doing yourself any favors by reverting perfectly reasonable edits by a (relatively) uninvolved editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect to "biting", what was clearly frustrating was that you restored the clearly opinionated text, without even mentioning that you were doing so. You repeated that action the second time, again without mentioning it. You'll have to forgive me if I seem frustrated by that. With your comments in mind, however, I have removed only the problematic text ("cluttering" and "useless") that I originally intended to fix, and left the rest of your changes intact (other than correcting a very minor spelling error). --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aargh, missed my own notes. I did pull "appropriate" from the very first line of the page; I can see your point for the second instance where you added it, but in the first case the text is illustrating the concept of linking itself. Hopefully, this works for you. --Ckatz^chat _spy 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to look at the clutter conversation -- I'm not sure I understand the issue fully. I simply made that aspect of my change because IMHO it makes good sense (and I have difficulty understanding what a spat about it could be about). It was just one of my many changes. The use of appropriate is IMHO appropriate in the fist sentences -- the guideline discusses the fact that some links are appropriate, others not. Linking through inappropriate hyperlinks is not an important feature of Wikipedia. Your deletion of my clarification suggests that it is. That's at odds with what the article says. I had thought that if anyone would find reason to question any aspect of my edit, it would be Tony musing as to whether my add suggesting linking (in places it wasn't formerly suggested) might be something we can discuss. That instead you should be the one biting me, and biting me for of all things this, annoys me, and suggests to me that you are not acting in the best of faith here, but rather approaching this page with a battleground mentality. Of course I could be wrong, and if I am I apologize, but I wanted to be frank with you as to how your revert here landed in this part of the world.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Include info on intra-article links?

Hi there, just a suggestion here to include information on intra-article links, so that editors will be better informed on this kind of linking. These links send readers from one part of an article to another part. If you want a reply from me, just ring me up at my talk page. Regards, AngChenrui ^Talk 03:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this was discussed earlier at this talk page, but the relevant guidance is already included in the last sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking)#Link specificity. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Should the information be made more overt and obvious to editors? I tried on a previous occasion to find info on linking within an article, but couldn't find any then. Thanks, AngChenrui ^Talk 04:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ang, can you suggest more obvious target words to use? Tony (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Announcement: new judge of the Silliest Wikilink of the Month Awards

Friends, it is with disappointment that I announce that His Grace the Duke of Waltham is no longer able to judge the monthly awards. However, we are in luck: Ceoil has kindly agreed to take over. Please see the announcement here. Tony (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic and not funny. Thanks for wasting my time, it gives me new impetus to do something useful. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not meant to be funny. It's a good-faith attempt to encourage excellence in linking practice on WP. Thanks for your concern. Tony (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair play, but to me it did the opposite. I come to MoS including its talk pages to get advice about how to make articles conform with MoS not to snigger about the worst link, a competition I neither no nor care about. You riled me and probably accidentally. It is my fault with being so keen, but had your style been in an article I would have found seventeen ways of saying that is out of order. You shouldn't really snigger at editors getting things wrong sometimes. If you take the job of fixing bad links – and God knows in good faith we all sometimes get the wrong links – you could be modest about it and not snigger behind other's backs. Si Trew (talk) 10:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling ClueBot will delete my remark for saying "s n i g g e r." because it includes another word (which I also don't find objectionable in the right context). If it then reverts my edits, complain to it, not me. (I have in the past, with no success.)

It's not so much a snigger as a recognition of the hard work (and careful judgement) of the many editors who clean up overlinked common terms in our articles. It's a job that can't be done automatically (beyond a small proportion, even then with care): it's contextual, mostly. I suppose sometimes we do smile at the linking of some words—it's hard not to. Better than being irritated by the task. And the original editor? I don't think anyone has ever bothered to go through article histories to find this: it's not the point. Tony (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the hard work, anyone who contributes to Wikipedia in any way deserves a slap on the back. I also agree with you that a lot of this work cannot be done automatically (and sometimes bots do more harm than good, then the fun starts telling them). So, I got riled without needing to. But it did rile me.

Best wishes, y'all keep up the hard work. Si Trew (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Books and television titles

I've had a look through the page and can't see anything specific on linking book and programme titles within an article. Would it be the case that they can only link to an article on those books/programmes? An example would be the Keith Floyd article where there are numerous links throughout the individual titles. Thanks. Jack 1314 (talk) 11:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just looks wrong to me - remove the links. Codf1977 (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Cod, isn't it good, direct, efficient linking practice to do this? I'd say they are high-value links. They are articles on those books and programs, aren't they? Tony (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I agree. A general rule of thumb is that one always links to proper names outside of what should be obvious geographic locations, since while one can presume a basic understanding of the english language while on en.wiki, one cannot presume any deep knowledge of people, books, shows, etc. But this of course assumes blue links or reasonable expected articles-to-be redlinks; if there's no article or no chance for an article, a link isn't necessary. --MASEM (t) 12:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Tony and Masem. Scrolling down, though, I see Keith Floyd#Cookery shows, which has rather silly links. Food? Italy? Africa? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for clarity, I believe Jack is referring to something like this example:

Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - where only partial linking of the title takes place.
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof - I don't think anybody has a problem with linking to the correct article.

Or as another example

Coming to America and not linking to the actual article on the book or movie.

I'd say, remove the partial linking. It's just gets silly. --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what I was referring to - just looks wrong. Codf1977 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What if...

The article encourages us to use red links to link future articles if they are relevant to the content. Let's say I want to put a link to the 1848 revolution in Germany, but there is an article only about the 1484 revolution not the former. (Hypothetical) Should I prefer the red link or the less detailed valid link ?

Sincerely NikitaUtiu ^{talk contributions} 08:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Red link. It's difficult to imagine how, in the circumstances you describe, how the 1484 revolution link could be a reasonable substitute for the 1848 revolution. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
(I'm assuming the "1484" was a typo.) The link has to go to the most specific place; then if the red link bothers you, you could create a redirect from there to the relevant section of the general article, and add it to Category:Redirects with possibilities. A. di M. (talk) 13:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- That was a typo, yes. So, you're saying that I should link it to the 1848 revolutin in Germany article and create a redirect until there will be such an article available ? NikitaUtiu ^{talk contributions} 13:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "aid understanding, avoid obvious"

The guideline says "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid adding obvious or redundant links", which seems a desirable objective.

However, I think some mention in the guideline should be given to who the potential readership is. For someone who is a native speaker of English, immersed in the western way of life, reasonably knowledgeable, reasonably well-educated, and immersed in a culture where the Abrahamic religions, or one of them, predominate, many "obvious" things may not be so for someone from an oriental or African background, maybe still in school, maybe never having visited a large town, with limited English and no connection to the Abrahamic religions. I don't know if the assumed readership of English Wikipedia is discussed everywhere, but it would seem (particularly with the de-facto status of English as a major international language) that English Wikipedia should cater for anybody who might want to try to use it, but requiring some modest proficiency with the English language - Wikipedia isn't a language school. The golden rule can perhaps be adapted ("do unto other as you would have them do unto you" ==> "write for others as clearly as you'd expect them to write for you"): link things that are part of your lifestyle in the same way as you'd hope others would clarify that in their context Sunday is just a day of the week like any other, that killing anything alive (e.g., flies) is considered sinful, that using or wasting water implies a long walk to get more.

My particular opinion of the readership we are writing to may not be the consensus position, but we do need to know who we are writing for (whatever group this is) when deciding what to link.

Pol098 (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On one hand, it turns out that most readers of the English Wikipedia are from the US or the Commonwealth; on the other hand, depending on that is a bad idea. A. di M. (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC) A. di M. (talk) 16:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding double linking within the text of an article makes perfect sense to me. Double links there do indeed make it more difficult for me to focus more on the text, which is why I am there, and less on all of the hyperlinks. But for me, avoiding any double linking between the text and an article's two link sections seems to me to be an exercise in following the letter of the rules, but missing their 'spirit'. One of the key 'spirits' of Wikipedia seems to me to be trying to be as 'helpful' as we reasonably can to as many readers as possible. Trying to force typical readers to reread the text several times by refusing to set-up link sections that are maximally comprehensive and helpful, seems to me to be a bit authoritarian, that is all. Anyone who doesn't like these link sections can easily ignore them, they are at the end of the article. But anyone who prefers to use them, under the current guidelines, is left with a couple of generally useless links at the end of the article, and having to rescan the entire article to find the link he or she may want. Are the current guidelines, which tend to discourage having a truly comprehensive link section in an article, being helpful to a typical reader, authoritarian, or what? Scott P. (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the guidelines are too authoritarian and deletionist. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. This notion of "link lots of items just in case a seven-year-old Moroccan schoolgirl happens to be reading an article" misses a critical aspect that has played out on the English WP over the past five years: linking is both a cost and a benefit for readers. Once the signal-to-noise ratio of the blue links reaches a certain point, readers are even less likely to click on a link than they are in a judiciously linked text. We owe it to readers to present them with high-value, not low-value links, and to do that we assume readers have a working knowledge of English and of the anglosphere. Otherwise, en.WP would end up like WP.fr, WP.it, and others, where text is an unseemly blue/black mess. They are six or seven years behind us: no proper guidelines for what to link and what not to; so like sheep, editors link everything in sight. On WP.fr, for example, "France" is linked on every occasion, as though they were slaves to a blind, unthinking formula. Why? It is ridiculous. Above all, let us not return to the old techie notion that an item has to be linked to be accessible. The seven-year-old Moroccan schoolgirl, I'm afraid, might need to type a few things into the search box if she sees an item she really wants to browse that is not blue. Or to keep an English dictionary handy at her side or on her desktop. Wikilinking is significantly weakened through dilution. Tony (talk) 09:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with "a working knowledge of English", but "of the anglosphere" stretches it too much: for example, I wouldn't assume a Singaporean and an Irishman to have much knowledge of each other's culture and way of life, even though they're both literate native English speakers. A. di M. (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Native speakers are part of the anglosphere. The Irish are a quintessential part of it. Tony (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is that any speaker can only be presumed to be familiar with their own part of the anglosphere, but not with all of it. I guess that if you pick ten native English speaker from (say) New Zealand at random and ask them what the capital of (say) Guyana (an English-speaking country) is, most of them will have no idea. So, unlinking Georgetown on the grounds that readers of the English Wikipedia can be assumed to have a working knowledge of the anglosphere would be silly. A. di M. (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. English is such a widely spoken language that presuming inherent knowledge of a topic related to an English-speaking country just because the reader happens to be living in a country where English is the main language is presumptuous to the excess. Despite what's been said before, there's more than a half-dozen countries where English is widely spoken, and where it is the first language. We can't necessarily presume anything; to do such would only reinforce Wikipedia's systemic bias.oknazevad (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention non-native speakers. 2.5% of readers are from India, 1.8% from Germany, 1.1% from the Netherlands[2] and it sounds unlikely that many of them are native speakers. Many of them might just use English as a lingua franca, communicating with people most of whom aren't native speakers either, and they might have no "working knowledge of the anglosphere" nor any desire or purpose of acquiring one: probably most of them would have no idea of where Saskatchewan is. A. di M. (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

←Linking "Georgetown" might be fine, but not "Guyana" straight after it, as though an address on an envelope. That would be a chain-link. Tony (talk) 05:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't disagree, too much, though that article is at Georgetown, Guyana, for disambiguation purposes. But that falls under the category of redundant links. It is when we presume that someone knows that Georgetown is the capital of Guyana just because they're a (native) English speaker that we run into trouble.oknazevad (talk) 06:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The only time you wouldn't link "Saskatchewan" would be if there were a more specific link next to it (say "Saskatoon"), or if it had already been linked previously in the article. Tony (talk) 22:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Major announcement: the Silliest Wikilink of the Month awards

Resolved

– Just an FYI; no MOS issues to address.

Our judge, Ceoil, will soon announce the winners of the awards for August, July and May 2010, and at the end of this month will announce the winner for September.

He has agreed that we might then change the focus of the competition from individual wikilinks and small groups of wikilinks to whole articles that are badly overlinked. Inevitably, those valuable editors who perform gnoming services are confronted with overlinking throughout whole articles (particularly of "dictionary" items). In almost all cases, this has arisen earlier in WP's history, when there was no coherent strategy for maximising the utility of the wikilinking system. It's a lot of work to clean it up, and the Silliwilli awards was set up to encourage this work.

Therefore, we have decided that from October 2010 onwards the awards should be judged in terms of whole articles. Competitors will still be asked to list individual links (but expanded to six of the funniest, most useless, most inexplicable individual links in the article, as an example of the entry); however, the removal of overlinking from the whole article will be the sole determinant in the award. We expect this will reduce the number of entrants each month, which will compensate for the extra work by the judge in analysing the entries. Tony (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Seeing green

Resolved

– Question answered.

Why is some of the text in this article showing up as green? In utter cluelessness, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

{{xt}} Dabomb87 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I pose a politely worded query in English and am answered with some kind of odd symbol? Curiouser and curiouser. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. The above template that I linked makes the text display in green font. It is used to highlight examples, I believe. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The main MoS has long used green text in Georgia to identify example text. Using italics or bold or whatever to identify examples doesn't work because sometimes the italics or bold is what's being demonstrated. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_110#An_idea:_markup_for_bad_examples was the first discussion about also using red text to distinguish wrong examples; there were others shortly after. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

Whoa, someone's mucked this up really badly. It's completely absurd to suggest that people should not link languages and geographical names, etc., within reason. Per WP:POLICY, Wikipedia guidelines describe actual, current, observable, consensus-based best practices on Wikipedia; they do not advance one person's or one camp's opinion of what WP best practices "should" be by proscribing common, or prescribing unusual, editor behaviors.

It is very clear, simply from looking at articles and infoboxes, that the vast majority of WP editors believe, and our readers expect, country, city and other geographical names, language names, and other proper nouns, to be linked at first occurrence the vast majority of the time. WP:MOSNUM, the controlling guideline on numerics, strongly suggests always linking first occurrences of currencies, units, etc., in any case where confusion could possibly occur at all, and does not suggest that more common usages shouldn't be linked (a common but not universal practice – i.e., one about which there is not solid consensus – and one that this guideline is not in a position to attack without a clear showing, e.g. in an RfC on the topic, that a preponderance of editors support a ban on such links). I am therefore making significant edits to the "Overlinking and underlinking" section to correct this problem and several others, including direct conflict with WP:MOSNUM and WP:SELFREF, among other issues, including bad list style, redundancy, etc., etc. MOS-watchers need to keep a much better eye on this page, as it has clearly been PoV-pushed in a reader-unhelpful, anti-linking direction.

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you’ve been too bold with your edit. The community has been through this at great length with wide input and you just changed something all by your lonesome. The wording there was no accident. To avoid over-linking articles, we avoid linking common terms everyone is familiar with and focus only upon the links that will truly add value. For instance, if there is an article on “Scientific goofs”, there might be this sentence: American scientists in the 1960s thought they had invented polywater. Given the nature of the article, only one link has value: polywater; all the others are superfluous and add no value. The rule is simple: link only those items that enhance the readers’ understanding of that subject. If it is an article on occupations, one would link the first occurrence of “scientists.” If it is an article on countries, one would link the first occurrence of “American.” But just linking the first occurrence of pretty much everything regardless of context results in articles that read like The sewer cover in front of Greg L’s house. Greg L (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Without delving too deeply into SMcCandlish's argument, I must simply agree with Greg L that there is simply too much linking going on. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If the rule is going to be "the names of major geographic features and ... should not be repeatedly linked", this either duplicates WP:REPEATLINK, or comes close enough to duplicating to be confusing. It's true that words like "American" are often linked, but I don't know why anyone would click them. If we're trying to make the guideline fit the usual practice, the usual practice is to link major countries throughout the article, not just once. When my AWB software unlinks such words, I often leave the first link to a country, religion etc. depending on how closely related it is to the article's subject; for instance, George Washington links to United States in the infobox, though not in the first paragraph. The Main Page is another undocumented exception; see Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries#Country links. Art LaPella (talk) 05:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Greg L's summary. HWV258. 07:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] To respond to all of the above at once (using "you" generically):

1. WP:BRD exists for a reason. There really is no such thing as "too bold", per WP:BOLD and more importantly WP:IAR. This is a wiki. Being bold does not do damage, and criticizing editors for being "too bold" is rather nonsensical.

2. As I've mentioned on my own talk page in response to Tony1, for the first time in several years I am invoking IAR, and ignoring the dafter parts of this section of the guideline, because they do not represent consensus at all, only what Tony describes as an "uneasy balance" between argumentative factions on this talk page. I will continue to link, sensibly, as I have done during my entire editing history and as most other experienced editors do, regardless what the perennially disputed section says, because that's actual de facto standard WP practice and has been for years, since before I was even an editor here. And I see precisely zero evidence that consensus has changed, only that certain parties here are tenacious, and through long, bitter dispute have worn down more sensible stances to agree to a compromise position that doesn't actually satisfy anyone. The section gets in the way of my ability to improve the encyclopedia, and that is precisely the circumstance for which the IAR policy was codified.

3. I'm not going to pitch a fit about being reverted (I expected it) so long as the "D" in WP:BRD is engaged in here. You can't have the "R" without the "D". My edits were well-explained, based in policy and much more widely accepted guidelines than this one. The responses thus far have been a) personal opinion not rooted in any such bases, b) just "don't rock the boat" conservatism, and c) musings and statements that are non-responsive to most if not all of the issues I raised. None of these reactions makes for a strong position, alone or combined.

4. I don't care if the wording there was no accident. It is still awful. The fact that something boneheaded, confusing and user-hostile was the product of a sausage-making committee full of people who don't agree with each other on much of anything is neither surprising nor any excuse. The section conflicts with WP:POLICY, WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, WP:BIAS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SELFREF (at least – I'm probably forgetting some) on a large number of points, is longwinded and in parts redundant, is invasive of MOSNUM's scope, has poor grammar in parts, is palimpsestuous and hard to parse, is clearly biased and prescriptive/proscriptive, and does not represent the actual practice of the majority of experienced, good faith, intelligent editors, among other issues.

5. I agree that there is too much linking going on. I unlink stuff all the time. It's one of my most common types of mainspace edit, in fact. Believing that overlinking is at play on WP does not equate to a mandate to introduce ridiculously vague and over-broad advice on (against, really) linking that contravenes very long-standing and very well accepted actual practice by the vast majority of editors. It would be much better to properly identify (WP:RFC, anyone?) what most editors do actually feel should not be linked. With that in mind, I introduced a handful of clear examples, each of which was selected because I have actually found them linked for no reason and delinked them, and had a good laugh; they were ones that stuck in my memory.

6. The "linking first occurrence of everything = a sewer" argument is a total straw man fallacy, since neither I nor any one else since the pre-Web days of the Xanadu Project has suggested doing so, that I know of. So, please don't be exaggeratory and melodramatic. In actual fact, I was quite explicit about what should be linked at first occurrence and gave, also, clear examples of what not to link at all. A reasonable person could argue that my take was perfect or too exclusive or too broad. Worth discussion. The interesting part here to me is that the language as it stood, and stands again since I was reverted, actually commits the "sin" you point out, in the inverse: It effectively suggests that nothing should ever be linked at first or any occurrence except under very restrictive conditions, that do not at all match how Wikipedia has operated from day one to the present (nor virtually all wikis of this "informational, researched articles" format, such as Memory Alpha, Battlestar Wiki, etc., etc.).

7. If you won't "delv[e]...deeply into [my] argument", and we don't disagree that there is too much linking going on, your comment about not delving but feeling there's overlinking going on is basically meaningless, since my edits do not suggest that too much linking isn't going on (in fact, I clarified how it is going on), and you don't present any argument against the specifics I changed. Unexplicated "me too" one-liners like that do not help build consensus, one way or the other, be they in formal !votes like WP:AFD, where they are mostly ignored by closing admins, or in informal discussions like this one.

8. If my changes resulted in a redundancy with other wording in the guideline (which I did not set out to edit from top to bottom, only uni-sectionally), this is not an indication that the change was bad, only that further editing needs to happen outside and/or inside this section, since the change simply made the document agree with itself better, instead of going off on a wild tangent trying to ban links that most editors consider completely normal. This is actually precisely what I would expect, given that much of this document has been stable for years, but this section is a frakfest of agenda-pushing and emotive argumentation, with layers upon layers of barely- to totally-incompatible edits, with greatly varying degrees of common sense applied. If moderating the extreme pre- and proscriptions in the contentious section makes it come more into line with the stable rest of the document, this is a very, very strong indication that the section in question has been badly off-kilter and getting worse.

9. It's not important whether or not you find a link to "American" useful or not, understand why it is there or why someone else might appreciate it, or would ever click it yourself. This encyclopedia isn't written specially for you. It's written for everyone who can understand some English, anywhere in the world. This includes people in censorious and propagandistic countries like China (P.R. of), where actual facts about the United States and Americans are often generally unavailable or distorted, except for those who have figured out ways around the censorship and gotten here to get sourced facts. Another way of looking at it: A lead section intro like "Ndele P. Mbebe is a Botswanan professor of physics teaching at Rutgers University since 1998..." is what I would guesstimate 95% of experienced WP editors would write. Someone from Botswana might not see any point to that first link and would never click it, since they already know all about Botswana. A physicist might feel likewise about the 2nd link, and so on. Most other people would not have such an "I don't give a hoot" reaction to such links, and see WP:BIAS for why making the US some magically special case is not acceptable. Taken to its logical conclusion, some might use this position to suggest that linking to Iraq shouldn't be done except where Iraq is really, really important to the topic at hand, because Iraq is all over the news all day long, and we all already know about Iraq. But I saw poll results in an Associated Press story about a year or so ago that reported that only a tiny percentage (less than 10%, maybe less that 5%, I forget) of Americans could even correctly identify Iraq on a map that showed borders but no country names. The point being, there are also sorts of reasons in favor of linking to articles on significant topics that provide context to an article subject - being a Russian and being Maori produce completely different worldviews; A Galician writer and a Castillian ("Spanish language") writer, both from Spain, will produce literature with a different "flavor", audience, social impact, etc. And so on.

10. The usual practice is certainly not to link every occurrence of countries and such. It's a common new editor mistake that experienced editors like you and me correct on sight. Please do not confuse experienced Wikipedian standard practice (codified or otherwise) with unhelpful noob editing behavior that happens to be frequent (and frequently undone). It takes virtually all editors (including me back in my wide-eyed time, and surely you in yours) some time to fully grok when and when not to link and how to do it in ways that aren't misleading, confusing, distracting, leading or otherwise unhelpful. When I refer to common, consensus-accepted, observable best practices I'm obviously referring to the former kind of editing practice, not the latter, and actually added noob-helpful information on what not to link.

11. PS: A side point I must stress, and I have to do this in multiple forums from time to time: Infoboxes are entirely dependent upon and subordinate to articles' main prose but (important here!) they are severable, distinct entities. All information that appears in an infobox should also appear in the prose, in one form or another (usually more developed, instead of summary form), and be sourced in the prose, even if sources are also in the infobox (which is usually unnecessary). I realize that, especially in biographies, this ideal is often not attainted, at least not until GA or FA review. But it must be goal for a very simple reason: WP content can be repurposed in any way (within the bounds of the license) via any means for any purpose. This includes recycling but filtering the wikicode to re-present the prose in other non-MediaWiki-wiki, blog, e-book, etc. marked up formats that may preserve styles and links, but strip all infoboxes, navboxes and other adjunct template content! D'oh! The upshot of this is, of course, that we cannot at all guarantee that a link in an infobox will remain "the first occurrence" on the page as it is reused elsewhere. Because users (here) often read only the infobox when skimming for quick information, first occurrence in an infobox of something worth linking should be linked. But because many users ignore infoboxes as "noise", and are here to read an in-depth article and already know the summary details of the topic they are researching, the same is true of the main prose - link the first occurrence in the article proper. I've been writing/editing articles this way for 5 years (linking in main prose and in infoboxes as if they were separate entities with a parent-child relationship, which <gasp!> is actually the case). I cannot remember one single case of anyone reverting me on this practice. Not one. It's self-evidently the only sensible way to do it, if and when one understands and considers WP's broader, off-site userbase, many of whom don't even know they are looking at content ultimately from WP – and without infoboxes and the like – unless they read the fine-print attribution. Infoboxes and navboxes (which also link to things that may already be linked in main prose) are tools – mini-pages, if you will – that are separate from, even if subordinate to, the main article prose. Personally, I think that the "no subpages" policy should be modified to always put infoboxes in a /infbox subpage. This would help remind people of the nature of an infobox and its relationship to the parent article, but I guess that's neither here nor there.

That's all I can think of for now. Apologies for the length but I want to be as plain and explicit on all aspects of this as possible, to minimize the amount of time people argue past one another and don't understand where the other side(s) is/are coming from. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 08:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I still agree with Greg L's summary. HWV258. 09:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, attempting to justify your actions by citing WP:BRD, WP:BOLD, WP:POLICY, WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, WP:BIAS, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SELFREF in an enormous smoke screen amounts to nothing more than WP:I MADE IT BLUE SO IT MUST BE TRUE.

There is no escaping the fact that the tide has been turning against overlinking the last few years, the wording you made a colossal change to was the product of vigorous debate and compromise by many editors over a protracted period of time, and that wording truly represents the best consensus to date (notwithstanding that you oddly cited WP:CONSENSUS in an attempt to justify your unilateral, undiscussed, colossal change to the guideline). It doesn’t matter if you think “it is still awful.” It appears that four of us (GeorgeLouis, Greg L, HWV258, and Tony1) are in one camp and only three are in the other camp (you, your links, and your flotilla-like posts). Stealing a stunt of yours, that is WP:CONSENSUS. And that consensus is to keep the existing wording for the moment.

Now, you may keep discussing the matter here if you like. I suggest you keep your arguments shorter because we are all volunteers here and time is limited. If you have an idea that makes sense and gains traction with others, great. If not, then as they say in the military: “So sad – too bad.” There is no politically correct requirement that others admire your ideas and edits as much as you do, nor should eventually tuning you out be construed as an invitation to you to wade back in and do as you please with a flame thrower. Greg L (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You contradict yourself. You claim a 4 vs. 1 situation^[#foobar|*], yet simultaneously claim that there was a "vigorous debate by many editors over a protracted period of time", resulting in the current version (a claim echoed, at my talk page, by Tony1). Can't have it both ways. If you really prefer to use numbers less than 24 hours old, well okay: A paltry Alamo of 4 editors in support of the current language, versus thousands upon thousands of experienced editors continuing to link exactly as they did a year ago and five years ago, indicates three, and only three, things with undeniable clarity: 1) Few Wikipedians give a damn about what this document says, indicating that either this guideline and the issues it attempts to address aren't very important at all, or that editors have lost faith with this page because it doesn't match actual practice (I strongly suspect the latter, and if anyone tried to MfD this as unimportant, you know it would be a speedy keep, and proof that the "unimportant" theory is false). 2) Too few editors have had any input into any of this (which I already knew and is why I've suggested, twice, an RfC) for you to declare that any kind of meaningful compromise has been reached (it's too thin a base of support to even have changed the guideline from how it read 2 years ago, much less to declare a new consensus on what it currently says). 3) Sparsity of participants aside, there clearly is no consensus anyway, by definition, since opinions are near evenly divided (see other critics of the current wording, above and in recent archives), thus resulting in the long, heated debate resulting in a messy compromise. It is not at all clear that there has been a tide against current, experienced-editor linking levels (I agree that there has been a tide against genuine overlinking, but you, Greg, are using that as a smokescreen to cover the fact that you are trying to redefine much of, if not most, normal linking as "overlinking"). All that's really in evidence, after factoring in all of this, is that a small group editors have used this page, which was stable and well-accepted for years, as a place to push their personal anti-linking agenda. Your Johnnie Cochran jab is a non-starter, since I've already laid out in detail both above and on a point by point basis in edit summaries how all of those policies and guidelines apply and to what. If I'd simply linked them, with no explanations, I would understand your criticism, but if falls flat here. Likewise, simply rejecting, without substantive response, my criticism that the section "is still awful" is a head-in-the-sand move, since I explained in detail how it is awful, and you have failed to address even a single one of those points. Just shouting "no!" at people doesn't make a rational argument. You and I are frequently at loggerheads, and I'm resigned to that, but I believe that we both have WP's best interests in mind, and could probably work together more productively if you'd take less auto-defensive, must-fight-at-all-costs positions and actually address the points I raise (and those of others - I'm not the only one you argue to the death with). That said, I realize that it takes two to argue, and I'm known for being argumentative myself. I will endeavor to be open-minded with you and the others who you say support your views, Greg (and with HWV, who explicitly states such support).

[^* And it's not 4 vs. 1 anyway; I'm not the only recent commentator who has a problem with this section. See for example the criticism by Michael C. Price above. (If that link doesn't work later, try /Archive 9#Re: "aid understanding, avoid obvious"). There are plenty more such views expressed in archived threads.]

— SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Responding to points directed at myself:

8. You agreed that "further editing needs to happen", so no significant disagreement here.

9. If my feelings for my native U.S. are a problem, then let's change the example to China, which is one of several major countries on my list for unlinking. Botswanans are unlikely to need to click an explanation of what China or the U.S. is. If they wanted to read all about China, they would have typed China into the search box, rather than read an article that happens to mention China. (Exception: If they're reading about Shanghai, then maybe they also want to read about China. If they're reading about a scientist who happens to be Chinese, then no, they don't want to read all about China.) Chinese may or may not know what Botswana is. I didn't find anything at WP:BIAS asserting that all countries are equally well known.

10. An experienced editor like me, rightly or wrongly unlinks more countries than you imply I do. The distinction between a noob mistake, and a practice opposed by a 4:1 majority (while recognizing how you challenged that statistic), is not a distinction I would want to explain during a flaming edit war of a kind that periodically afflicts the Manual of Style. Each side often considers the other to be making a noob mistake. A major purpose of having a Manual of Style is to arbitrate such dialogues of the deaf, in a way that is less likely to be interpreted as hostility.

11. The George Washington article doesn't link United States in the first paragraph. I was just describing the handiest example, not presenting it as my ideal. Art LaPella (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

8. Are you sure you want to agree with point 8? I'll take you at your word. It brings up quite a bit more than that the page needs further editing.

9. You and others in favor of massive de-linking are laboring under the very false assumption that the point of a wikilink is to "find out what something is" (someone else above said something to this effect as well). Links are to "provide all sorts of encyclopedic information about something", a much, much broader mandate. A large percentage of the time, someone clicking a link in an sentence in an article knows very well what that something "is", and are following the link because they want to look for something non-obvious about that "something" that is relevant to the context in which the link appears or (even more often) to something in the readers' mind that has been triggered by the appearance of the "something" in the context in question. Some of the most fruitful Wikipedia reading is the following of these links at reader whim and under reader individual interest. Massive delinking as proposed by this version of the guideline text is effectively robbing readers of the opportunity to chase their own interests (or would be, if many editors actually did what this guideline presently tells them to do). Many readers reading about a Chinese scientist damned well do want to get to the article about China, because if it's not a total shite article, it probably has an entire section about science and technology in China, and academia in China, and so on, that may help the reader place the original article subject is a much broader context than his or her little bio article does. Please stop assuming that everyone uses Wikipedia the way you do, which is apparently in a very linear and narrowly focused manner. All you "it's a sea of blue! it's a sea of blue! aaaaa!" people need to do is quit fighting with everyone else and turning guidelines on their ear, and just go install a few lines in your default.css that make links do something less intrusive for you than be bright blue. What you've all done is akin to tearing down a bridge used by everyone because you find it too bumpy and loud, instead of fixing your own bad shocks and bald tires.

Bang! Cavendish, you shot yerself in the foot. When you have a Chinese scientist's bio, this is the sort of link you need – not some semi-hemi-demi-pertinent link (China) ;-). Unless we change this blinkered mentality like yours of arguing for linking the most obvious, rather than the most relevant or germane, people will continue to do so without engaging their grey matter. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

10. I'm not the only one to have pointed out there is no 4:1 majority (see below). I'm sorry I even used that back at you guys as a joke, since it's now being bandied about as if it were a valid statistic. Let's not be silly. I get your point that this camp or that camp can accuse the other of noob mistakes. I'm not doing that. I'm drawing a distinction between overlinking errors committed by noobs, including linking of countries and such every time they appear, linking of dictionary words for no reason, linking of all dates, etc., on the one hand (linking simply because it can be linked), versus carefully thought-out link made by editors who know what they are doing, including linking of dictionary words when their context in the article is very special, dates that add important information or context (e.g. 2009 in film, in a movie article), and first occurrences of countries, currencies and various other things (linking because it adds something some non-trivial subset of the readership will find helpful). This distinction has nothing at all to do with whether some experienced editors have a deletionist bent, a more stringent idea of what constitutes "overlinking", while others are more inclusionist and permissive. Those are basically two different discussions entirely. The fact that the latter case is, clearly, an ongoing debate indicates beyond any shadow of a doubt that consensus has not been reached on a firm boundary for what constitutes "overlinking". Yet, we also know for a clear fact that many things are consensus-accepted as overlinking.

(See also, below again, for an a-b-c-d... layout of how two radically different issues are being conflated here, often intentionally by those who are trying to confuse broad agreement that blatant overlinking is a negative, with illusory claims of broad agreement that their personal interpretation that almost all links to countries qualify as overlinking. Different issues.)

What needs to happen, and what I did and was reflexively reverted on, without (to date) a single substantive response to even one point raised by my edits, edit summaries and follow-on talk page material about those edits, is that the over-breadth and vagueness of this section has to be pared down from prescriptive and proscriptive agenda-pushing positions that blatantly obviously do not have consensus (because multiple parties are, and for two years have been, disputing it), with a restoration of the wording to a) what does have consensus as "overlinking", and b) what can be clearly observed as normal non-noob practice (i.e., linking most "major topics" if you will at first occurrence, and forbidding redundant linkage).

I still stand by my edits. I'm not criticizing you in particular here, Art, but not one reply on this entire thread has provided a logical, well-reasoned, evidence-backed rationale for the revert that was applied to every single change I made, in knee-jerk, blanket fashion. "I think you went to far" (to paraphrase) is not an argument, it's simply an opinion like "I think chocolate tastes good". "This has consensus, so don't change it" (to paraphrase again) when there is overwhelming evidence of no consensus, is not an argument, it's simply disingenuous nonsense (or evidence of cognitive problems). I believe strongly in WP:BRD, but at some point the "D" in that has to actually happen, in a substantive way, about the changes that were "R"'ed, or the "B" is going to come back in play, with the burden of proof shifting to the reverter(s).

11. So what? The George Washington article isn't evidentiary of anything salient here. I'd bet you real cash money that I can find versions of that article that do link United States at the top of the prose (as should be the case). I can also find many, many bio articles that do likewise right now. GA and FA candidate are likely to not have them linked, because GA and FA reviewers almost slavishly follow what guidelines like this say, whether they agree with them or not, and whether they are stable or not, because that's just how WP:GAN and WP:FAC work, for better or worse. And I agree with that process. They have to use something as an arbitrary baseline, and our guidelines are that baseline, even when they are problematic. If GAN and FAC didn't do this, it would be a woefully biased popularity contest where whoever happened to be doing GAN/FAC work that week or day got to impose their highly personal preferences as reject a great article in favor of a crappy one for totally subjective reasons. So, an example like that really isn't germane to this debate at all. The funny thing about the G.W. article is it's actually a great example of where United States absolutely, positively should be linked at first occurrence, since the US and the very concept of the US is utterly central to the historical figure, and the figure is deeply bound up with the existence of the nation! Sheesh, that link should be there even under a version of this document that were more anti-link. Thanks for proving one of my major points for me. >;-) (And contrast this case with something like the country's appearance in a phrase like "mined in large quantities in Botswana, France, Indonesia, the United States and Venezuela" at Bauxite, to make up a counterexample. I can understand opposition to, and might even be convinced to lean toward opposing, links to those countries there because they are not intimately tied to the subject. However, there is no doubt that a well-developed country article would provide sections on industries and natural resources, and that these would provide context to and information about mining in those countries, if not bauxite mining in particular, and that this information would be helpful to some subset of readers of the Bauxite article. My personal jury is still out on links of grey-area utility like that.)

[Outdent] There has not been "wide input", nor is there any "4:1 majority"; the more controversial changes are largely the result of the personal preferences of a handful of editors who doggedly pursue this goal. Furthermore, the statement "you just changed something all by your lonesome" is particularly troublesome given that the reason we are here today is due to someone completely changing the focus of this part of the guideline two years ago, "all by their lonesome". There has to be room for compromise, as requested numerous times in discussions on this page and elsewhere. Guidelines cannot be used as a means of imposing an individual vision on the project. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

8 and 11 are about things I never said. 9 has been debated to death; I hadn't seen the previous debate before. As for 10, if there is such a broad consensus for linking everything you want to link, then I'm glad you're here trying to change the guideline; how else would we know? Anybody can say the other guy's opinions and edits don't count, because we have it thought out better. Maybe we need statistics correlating number of links with number of edits or something, although that implies that noobs conform because we know better, not because of "When in Rome". More on this at User:Art LaPella/Because the guideline says so. Art LaPella (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Whilst you are correct that this remains a very localised discussion, where the numbers are hardly significantly, you seem to be implying that some editor unilaterally changed the guideline two years ago. Yet you fail to explain how somehow it has remained magically stable and, strangely to you, inexplicably enjoys widespread though not unanimous support. Guidelines exist to put everyone on the same footing, and I would say this one does its job quite well. Caricaturing modestly, I would say your idea of 'compromise' seems to be being allowed to ensure that Canada, well known country though it is, to remain linked throughout the project. I guess I ought to be grateful that you don't go around systematically reverting my unlinking edits. Please demonstrate, other than by paying lip service, that you accept linking to the extent we have 'enjoyed' (sic) in the past may indeed be detrimental and that the acceptance of this new reality is more widespread than you would care to openly admit. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It has remained in this form because some of the handful of major supporters of the major wording change against linking are browbeating, incessantly repetitive attack dogs who will not let their position go nor compromise, but simply always insist, without evidence, that their position is correct, and that everyone else is wrong about everything, again without any evidence that this is true, and will never actually address any criticisms or concerns, no matter how many times it is demanded that they do so. It is impossible to have a rational discussion/debate in the face of such illogical and fallacious tactics. What usually happens is that such nonsense is ignored by everyone else, the changes are reverted, and things go on normally, as they should. But in a few cases here and there (I can name some others, though I'd kinda rather not get into it), such parties are so loud and act so effectively in small-numbered but exceedingly vocal and lock-step concert, probably coordinated in e-mail so there's no evidence of canvassing, that more rationale discourse is drowned out, and everyone else just gives up and goes away with massive headaches and dangerously elevated blood pressure. What happens after that is that the hijacked guideline is largely ignored by everyone except the special interest who have usurped it, and editors continue doing what they have been doing for years. The bad part, for day-to-day editing, is that this inevitably leads to edit-warring between established editors who know how to edit, regardless what an pseudo-consensus has to say on some screwed-beyond-recognition guideline page that's been radically altered away from actual practice, versus newer users who treat all guidelines as gospel and don't understand that wikipolitics is always at play in them. Another downside is that WP:GAC and WP:FAN will force the undoing of good editing that reflects actual de facto standard, consensus practice as evidenced by actual experienced editor behavior in the aggregate, in favor of something stupid that someone has inserted into a guideline, because both process are (necessarily) bound to follow the guidelines as a baseline of neutral arbitration and fairness. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

PS: Please stop conflating the two very, very different issues/arguments at play here. Virtually everyone agrees that overlinking does happen, and that it is a Bad Thing. And we all even agree on some of what constitutes overlinking, like links to dictionary words or dates, unless there's a very special reason for doing so in some limited context. The other and completely severable issue is that a small but incredibly vocal and tenacious minority want to define as overlinking links to countries and such, that the vast majority of editors consider perfectly valid links – as clearly evidenced by the fact that most experienced editors link them at first occurrence despite two years of this increasingly disputed guideline saying not to (that last part is very important)). There is no connection between these points. Yet this is the second if not third time in two days that a supporter of greatly increased delinking, in this thread, has tried to imply that they are the same in a vain hope of strengthening his/her argument. I'll spell it out as clearly as possible so no one misses it the next time it happens: Just because a) overlinking does happen, and b) overlinking is detrimental, and c) there is no substantial disagreement about these points, does not mean d) links to countries or some other categorization being attacked by certain parties to the debate actually constitute overlinking (no evidence of broad consensus on this idea, and strong evidence that the idea is controversial, thus the historically raging and now renewed disputed on this page, and widespread disregarding of this part of the guideline), e) nor that links to such topics are actually detrimental (zero evidence of this whatsoever), meanwhile f) the vast majority of experienced editors continue to edit and link the way this guideline advised before it was heavily modified by "authoritative and deletionist" (see original quotation above) anti-linkers. This "well, we both agree that there's overlinking and it's bad, ergo we have to stop linking countries like the current text says; I win, argument over" nonsense is not a valid argument. It's fallacious from top to bottom, and it's not fooling anyone. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz, that's kinda what I thought. See just above on this very page here (or there if the first link doesn't work due to archving) for an outright demand for evidence of consensus for the current version, with supporters' abject failure to provide any at all. That right there is enough to revert this to what it was before the major changes were pushed, or (as I did in my BRD move, just rewrite to be like that but better). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

NB: I'm actually going to bow out of this for a while, since I've said my piece. I know GregL doesn't like long posts, and I'm not here to antagonize him. I also know he is prone to protracting arguments if he feels antagonized, and that I am more likely to argue for longer and with more heat if I get irritated by people who launch into to me because they feel antagonized (based on direct experience with GregL and some others here), so I don't see the point in any more back-'n'-forth right now. I've made all the points that I feel I need make, and have backed them up with clear and sound rationales. Meanwhile, I've gotten absolutely jack in response that substantively addresses the issues that I raised in my "too bold" edits. I'll let others who also care about this dispute take up the torch for a while. Drop me a {{wb}} at my talk page if my attention is needed. Closing (for now) summary: It's plain as day that there is no consensus for the current wording of this section, and there never was, otherwise it would be naturally impossible for there to be long, bitter debate about it, a debate that was self-defeatingly pointed out by supporters of the disputed language. The way forward is to remove pre- and proscriptions that do not have consensus, clarify the parts that do, and either just have the document STFU at that point, or (as I did) spell out what actual practice is among the majority of experienced editors (acknowledging that some experienced editors like Art take a more link-restrictive viewpoint). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 04:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to add my name here as someone who is relieved that the overlinking of the past is finally being reduced, and I'd really hate to see any attempt to increase it again. As I see it, if someone wants to read about France they'll type that word into the search box. In addition to that point, the more links an article as, the less noticeable each of them becomes, so for the pro-linkers too, less is surely more. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness, what a lot of words! From what I can make out, somebody wants to simplify the MOS. So, why don't you post your suggested MOS change in your own sandbox, with a link here — then people who agree with you can have a look at it to get it ready for posting as a change to the MOS? In short, I have no idea what is proposed, and I don't intend to wade through all the above to find out. Sincerely, your very good friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. This section indicates to me that there may be an innate inability of the proponent to cut to the chase. I see no substantive arguments from him to justify calling for linking of words such as English, English language, United States of America, US dollar, when these are clearly words that >99% of people reading it know the meaning of, other than being what the proposer believes is the objective truth©™. This guideline has been arrived at by consensus through thorough discussion, and the onus is on any proponent of such a major change to prove that consensus has evolved to justify such a radical change in the wording. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Links such as those mentioned almost never add value to the articles in which they are being placed. They simply dumb-down WP. I have trouble believing we are still discussing this. HWV258. 04:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

{{ec)) If you are going to start off by saying you didn't read it, you probably shouldn't go out on a limb to say something isn't included. In fact, SMcLandish does make a reasoned point about why those terms should be linked. While apparently you only ever click on article links if you aren't familiar with the subject, not everyone browses that way. Someone reading a passage that mentions the US dollar may want to go to United States dollar to see what it includes about the topic. Someone reading "US$200" may want to click to see whether the article mentions a rough conversion between her currency and the dollar. That sort of use of Wikipedia is equally as valid as yours.

Your mentioning consensus also ignores what was said. The point is that while the current language may have been arrived through comprise among people at this talk page, it does not reflect the actual practice of a significant portion of, if not most, experienced editors. What exactly "consensus" means is much more woolly with Manual of Style and other guidelines than with articles. While consensus at an article rightly reflects the views of the editors of that article, consensus for a guideline should generally reflect actual editor behaviour rather than the views of the editors who happen to be interested in the guideline.

Finally, your point about there being a burden on the proponent is true, but you get what needs proving badly wrong. It is not his or her burden to establish consensus has changed; rather, the burden is to establish why it should change. Consensus then moves or doesn't. From the few replies that are actually responsive or show that the party replying has bothered to read what he is arguing against, it seems (though I may be wrong) editors think that at least this part of the Manual of Style should be prescriptivist rather than descriptivist. I don't see why. Actual practice among experienced editors at articles across the project is to link many of these terms. -Rrius (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

An article might mention the cost of a bridge built in Gdańsk in the 1970, and then give a US dollar conversion at that point in time. The USD is the currency of the largest economy of the English-speaking world, and also one of the 4(?) most important reserve currencies in the world. What's more, such a link would not be germane; even it's relevance is questionable because it is only a reference point. If someone wanted the current conversion rate, we would point tot he fact that WP is not the news. Anyway, most readers would know they will not find it here, and that they should to go to yahoo finance for today's exchange rate to the zloty. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, no. Knowing about the articles you object to is almost as important as knowing the arguments you are countering. United States dollar#Exchange rates provides historical conversions to several currencies. -Rrius (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for shaking you out of your apparent smugness, but you've entirely missed the point. A typical construction, in your case, goes like this: 'The Blah-blah Tower was built in 1904, at a cost of INR4 million (US$985,000)^[12]', where citation #12 is the source which says it was $985,000. There is no value to the reader of enticing him/her to visit the United States dollar article just to look up what another editor has put down in the table at United States dollar#Exchange rates – that information will be in the source. The INR (or PLZ or name your currency) isn't even in your table, so it would be entirely moot in your case. Mention of the US currency is just for reference purposes, and not at all germane nor relevant, so there is no earthly reason to link to USD. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Actual practice among experienced editors at articles across the project is to link many of these terms"—well, once upon a time, the actual practice at WP was to link dates and date fragments in regular articles; however that practice is now deader than the dodo. HWV258. 04:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Assuming people are stupid is not a great way to win arguments. As you know well, date linking was a part of date autoformatting, which was deprecated following a discussion with wide community involvement. That has never been the case here, and certainly wasn't for the existing language. I'm a persuadable editor, but it will take actual arguments rather than what we we've seen in support of the current language to this point. Just because I can restate SMcLansish's argument and defend it against weak arguments doesn't mean I agree with it. The fact is, I'm inclined to believe the best and most realistic language would be somewhere between the two passages in the summary section below. -Rrius (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and tangentially, why did you type [[Dodo|dodo]] instead of [[dodo]] to produce dodo? I see this around from time to time, but I haven't figured out why. -Rrius (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, lots of editors liked underlining dates as a means of getting to a page of nebulous information (and one or two still try to flog that particular dead horse). That's why the linking aspect of the debate attracted separate RfC questions (here and here). The point being of course, that what was once established practice is no longer desirable (be in linking or auto-formatting). HWV258. 05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Underlining just years was done only by a small minority long before date autoformatting. I simply don't believe there was ever a point where most experienced editors thought linking dates was a good idea. Linking month-day dates was about autoformatting, and when it went out, there was, at best, a de minimus minority of editors who still thought linking them a good idea. Once again, I doubt you could show that there was ever a majority of editors who linked months and days for a reason other than autoformatting. Point being, of course, that, as I said, established practice was only changed after a very long discussion among a wide swathe of members of the community. -Rrius (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but those of us who went blow-for-blow through the entire miserable experience are also entitled to retain our memories of the events. I'll try one last time: at one point, being able to link/auto-format dates was widespread; now it isn't. Therefore the argument that "actual practice is..." is not always a good reason for maintaining that practice. HWV258. 05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that that your example doesn't make sense. Linking of February 12 was never organically the actual practice of editors. At point A, there was a guideline saying dates should be linked for the benefit of logged-in users. At point B, there was a debate involving a large segment of the community, with notice given prominently to all editors. That led us to where we are now, point C, where the guideline now says not to autoformat. The situation is completely different from what I'm talking about, which is the actual behaviour of editors. Can it change? Of course. But the guideline here should follow any such change, not seek to bring it about. The question is then, what do people actually do? Do they link units of measure and currency, United States and United Kingdom? In my experience, most people do, and a few people sweep through and delink, only to have many of the terms relinked down the line. -Rrius (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You have forgotten about the point between A and B when there was widespread delinking of dates (before the various RfCs). Remember that monkey-see; monkey-do often applies, and linking US and UK simply because they exist in an article is a brain-dead activity that appeals to the link-lunies. Delinking them because they don't deepen the understanding of an article is a thought-out and intelligent activity that strives toward one goal: to make WP easier-to-use for all readers. In terms of "...a few people sweep through and delink, only to have many of the terms relinked down the line", that's obviously a statistical guess; but I will say that it is necessary for a few bold editors to show the way (and that is their right at WP). That is exactly what happened with date linking and formatting—to the current advantage of WP. Enough users have now given cogent reasons for not changing the text of this MOS. HWV258. 04:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent example of the arrogant attitude that causes so much friction around MoS issues. This "we're right, anyone who objects is just too stupid to get it" mentality needs to change. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your post is unfair as it doesn't address the issues raised (and is a disappointing effort from an editor whom I generally respect). I didn't use the word (or imply) stupidity. You neglect to mention that the RfCs overwhelmingly supported the instinct of the editors who began the date-delinking work (the same editors who are now working to improve WP by removing links that do not deepen the understanding of articles). So let's be clear: it's not just "we're". HWV258. 10:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree insofar that there is a lot of arrogance and friction around MoS issues. That's all the more reason to quarantine the arguments here, not re-argue them at every article — either that, or don't let the MoS call itself a guideline at all. Or if we're going to try to make the rules match the consensus of experienced editors, we can still have plenty of arguing and arrogance over defining that criterion. Art LaPella (talk) 06:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Dodo": to match the title of the article exactly, but to get a lower case "d" in the text. HWV258. 05:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The first letter of an article title is not case sensitive, so [[Dodo|dodo]] and [[dodo]] both point to the same place without redirect. -Rrius (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply a precision born of too long a time spent in the computer industry. Thank you for your observation. HWV258. 05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Enough already. I’ve got a medical experiment starting in a few days and don’t need to be wasting my time on this tired old issue. We’ve had more than enough words here. This dispute will not be won by the editor who has the most time to waste and is most willing to pound his or her keyboard to death; it borders on tendentiousness. Our policies on linking are clear and are designed to ensure that the only words that are linked are those that will actually enhance a reader’s understanding of a particular article. This principle applies everywhere on a page, including infoboxes. Badgering the community to death and putting poor HWV258 in a position where he feels he is the only one standing sentry on this issue is poor form. There is no consensus to change our policies to avoid overlinking. Drop it please. Greg L (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Summing up the linking dispute

The suggested MOS change is the last 4 edits by SMcCandlish, which were largely reverted by Tony1. The main controversy is whether to scale back this:

"Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions, common units of measurement, ..."

down to this:

"Unless they are particularly important to the topic of the article, avoid linking plain English words whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia (e.g. dog, breakfast, river, elbow). While the names of major geographic features and locations, historical figures, religions, languages, and other proper names, as well as currencies and units of measurement, are often but not always linked at first occurrence in an article's prose or infobox, they should not be repeatedly linked." Art LaPella (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Art LaPella. Is the first version you cited now to be found in WP:MOS? I couldn't find it. Or is this simply a suggested change? Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS has subpages such as WP:Manual of Style (linking), and you are now reading its talk page. The text I quoted is at WP:Manual of Style (linking)#What generally should not be linked. Art LaPella (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not like to see the proposed change implemented as it would be a diluting mish-mash. It is important that all links exist only to deepen the understanding of the topic of the article in which they have been placed. (I find it ironic that "dog" and "breakfast" have been placed in such close proximity in the example.) HWV258. 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think he may have intended also to juxtapose 'river' and 'blue' ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

SMcCandish's proposed change would eviscerate our clear, prudent guidance. It is entirely unacceptable.—DCGeist (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with the current wording of the guideline. I am not fine with people who believe that unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking means 'never, ever link anywhere'. A. di M. (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed a major issue; the wording is being used by a few individuals to justify stripping out links en masse, often with no apparent regard for appropriateness. If more discretion were to be demonstrated, especially with regard to geographical links, we might not have this problem. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you were thinking of this? If you meant my own unlinking, then naturally I think I use "discretion" consistent with the "particularly relevant to the topic" clause. Art LaPella (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. The community has had a belly-full of this issue and some of the above posts drone on like a filibuster from a Southern senator opposing a civil rights bill.
The proposal is a bad idea because it outright invites linking totally extraneous garbage, such as if there was an article on “Scientific goofs”, this sentence: American scientists in the 1960s thought they had invented polywater. …would have three needless things linked when all it needs is one link: polywater.
There is always a losing side to these contentious issues. However, “contentious” does not equate to “chronically reoccurs like genital herpes.” The current wording is simple and couldn’t be clearer. The tip-off that it is a thoughtful guideline is it begins with these, oh-so-logical words: Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article… and then isn’t immediately followed up with caveats designed to undermine that very principle.
There is no stomach for revisiting the issue, let alone actually changing the current guideline. Greg L (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Deja vu. An editor comes along to query the wording of the linking guidelines, and/or the very rigid interpretation of the "unless relevant .." qualification - while making very clear their absolute agreement with the removal of redundant, repetitive and trivial links - and gets shot down by the same four-five person clique who by virtue of their presence on this page believe that they represent the consensus across Wikipedia, told that they're on the "losing side" and should head off to the dustbin of history; that they don't understand what linking is for, and that they're duping and confusing other readers about what other pages they should be able to link to easily (as if there is a definitive right and wrong about those last two, uniform for every single reader); that they want "seas of blue" etc. You know, when this happens this regularly, both here and on the talk pages of those removing vast numbers of links from pages, you might stop to consider that there's a problem here, and that your consensus isn't quite as strong outside of this bubble. People are just asking for flexibility, and an understanding that just because most people (not all, note) know pretty much what and where for example Italy is, or what a lawyer is, we don't need to remove every single link to such pages from related ones. Those pages, after all, say much, much more than simply what and/or where the thing is. Even Italians and lawyers might be grateful for a link on occasion. And, of course, people don't have to click on it if they don't want to. Choice, it's an amazing thing. People are capable of exercising it when confronted with options. And if someone could give a clear and simple answer to the question posed here, that might help. N-HH talk/edits 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The "four-five person clique", though undercounted, is something to think about. Last year I think there were 3. But 2 or 3 people telling us what the consensus is, and that anyone outside that consensus doesn't count, present a similar problem. Either way you look at it, keeping the hostility level down will encourage more participation here and a better mandate. To answer the 2 questions: the current discussion is probably as good an indicator of consensus as we're going to get, and nobody says "regardless of context". Of course there is no standard list of common countries, but mine is no secret; search User:Art LaPella/AWB list for the word "Pacific". Art LaPella (talk) 02:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree about hostility, but my experience when I entered this debate after seeing a link to "France" chopped out of an article on my watchlist, was a slew of people - names that are now very familiar - telling me I was wrong to even raise the issue, as well as totally and utterly misrepresenting - continually and repeatedly - my position. That just sets the tone from the outset. And, like I say, I noted above after popping by this page again, the same thing happening to someone else. Plus people posting links to pictures of crying babies. The other problem is that this is a pretty closed, backwater forum. Consensus here can in no way be taken as consensus across WP for something that is a little more fundamental than whether to use Oxford commas, or en or em dashes. Anyway, thanks for that link - but come on, it's utterly unclear what that is all about to the average reader or editor, myself included. Plus if everyone has different ones, where is the consistency? N-HH talk/edits 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

If your issue is Champagne (wine), I probably would neither add nor delete a link to France from the lede of that article. But most country links I find are less relevant than that one. So if you think Champagne needs a link to France, that is an argument for refining OVERLINK, not for making OVERLINK pretty much irrelevant. Crying babies: yeah, I almost posted an objection to that. Backwater forum: sure, but once again, what's the alternative? Appoint you as the judge of what the consensus is? That link: I didn't expect you to try to read the AWB regex code, just the list of countries and related words before and after "Pacific"; was that your problem? Sure everyone has different lists, or no explicit list at all if they don't use software, but why do you want consistency? On the one hand you think OVERLINK is overregulating from a backwater forum, and on the other hand you think it's underregulating because it doesn't list exactly what should be unlinked. If we don't really have authority for OVERLINK, then where would we get authority for agreeing on a specific list? Other Wikipedia rules such as WP:CIVIL don't list a specific list of forbidden swear words; the context matters too, not just the words. Art LaPella (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus status quo is fine and dandy. We have WP:IAR if there is an exceptional case we need to cover. Flexibility and choice are fine, but the point of having a manual of style is to have some degree of consistency. Too much flexibility and choice will defeat this goal. Keep the guideline as it is, please. --John (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually broadly fine with the guideline as is too, as I would be equally be with the proposed change (which possibly I might slightly prefer). However, as noted above, people need to read the qualifications in them, eg where they say common terms should not be linked, unless relevant. Also where they state that links are about general navigability, as well as about simply directing people to where they "should" go or about what will "help understanding" in some strictly defined sense for some ideal, standardised reader. That's where these problems ultimately all stem from. In an article about an Italian lawyer, links to both Italy and lawyer on one occasion each do not seem to be overlinking, by common sense, standard editing practice or an accurate reading of the current guidelines. But a small number of editors regularly remove them, even from infoboxes, often using automated tools, citing "overlink". That just seems unnecessary, and not especially helpful in any obvious way. N-HH talk/edits 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Choice is all well and good, but when you go to a concert, you'd expect there to be a certain amount of quiet for you to enjoy the music. Extraneous noise detracts from the listening experience. You are of course free to plug into your iPod, but please switch off yer bleedin' phone. As to 'lawyer' above, I'd say it was a word which should almost certainly be unlinked in a biography - unless the subject was a specialist and there was a more specific branch of applicable law, such as land law or employment law that can be linked to. Linking to 'law' or 'lawyer' brings 'sweet FA' to the party. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what the music point has to do with anything. It's a very odd analogy. And a link to lawyer brings a link to lawyer for any reader who might happen on any occasion to want to use it and read in some detail about the profession that this person was a member of. That page says a lot more - I assume - than "lawyer: a person who does law". The more important question is what having a link to a significant term takes away, when it's clearly relevant to the topic of that page. How actually does it detract or distract? Does the word being a bit blue magnetically pull people towards clicking on it, when they might not otherwise? You personally might not want it there, but with the greatest respect, so what? There are millions of other readers and editors. N-HH talk/edits 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why notions of "hostility" and "friction" have arisen. Another way of looking at it is: healthy debate. I have tried to respond to issues, and I believe most other editors have done the same. No harm; no foul.
Here's an example of what a healthy application of the guideline produces. Four months ago, with that edit, I removed links to six common terms and a country name—links that did nothing to deepen the understanding of the topic. There have been no reversions of my edit (indicating community support), and the article scans better without the links. It's not just the delinking of words such as "lipstick" and "piano" in that article for which the hard-working editors involved in this issue strive, it is also a change of culture that will hopefully deter editors from wanting to make such nebulous links (or at least to have editors think carefully about the relevance of links, as opposed to the scatter-gun approach to linking).
HWV258. 07:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that edit in its entirety (I would say though, that lack of reversions is as likely to indicate indifference as much as "support", when it comes to other people's views). As I agree with the idea that links should not be scattered thoughtlessly. As I agree with the idea that people should think before adding them. But I also agree that people should think before removing a link. Which is, of course, something the guidelines explicitly require, when they ask people to bear in mind that a link they might want to remove "may be useful to other readers." There is a such a thing as a good idea pushed too far on occasion. N-HH talk/edits 15:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that. The delinking jihad has continued for too long. Time for a bit of common sense, and having terms linked more than once per article or section would be a good start. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"...delinking jihad...". Just when you think some progress is being made, along comes the usual childish pejorative nonsense. Sigh. HWV258. 00:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Cf your own language, HWV258: "link-lunies". --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Michael, my comment wasn't directed at you (you're not one are you?). But let me humour your point for a moment: are you saying that you wait for someone to make a comment that you don't think is appropriate to justify returning an inappropriate comment? HWV258. 08:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but HWV258, my comment wasn't directed at you (you're not part of the jihad, are you?). --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You knew very well my inclination towards delinking when you posted, so you are being disingenuous. For the record, "Jihad" refers to a religious duty by Muslims and is therefore a poorly selected word in this context. My other point remains unanswered. HWV258. 10:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"...delinking jihad...". I would like to believe that he is merely trying to wind you up, so I would react accordingly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

"childish pejorative nonsense ..." Sigh. Art LaPella (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it? I think the adjectives were more or less spot on, but I would have just used the noun 'rhetoric'. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

mein gott! "having terms linked more than once per article or section would be a good start" – need that like a proverbial hole in the head. I think only a very small number of the more vocal linking advocates, if any, would support that view. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles and sections can be very long. The context of words and phrases changes; sometimes a term, in context here elicits inquiry, whereas there will not and for another reader it will be reversed, hence repeated linking is sometimes advisable for ease of use. Why is that deemed such a radical opinion? I've been following this linking fiasco for years and never seen a rational counter-argument that held water. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, we agreed a few months ago that on this page, the temperature would be kept cool, with no emotive or personalised language. HWV, "childish" is unhelpful here; and Michael, labelling editorial work as a "jihad" is just as unhelpful. Could we please engage on the issue rather than commenting on editors and behaviour? Tony (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct. "Childish" wasn't anywhere near the appropriate adjective in this case. I will try harder in future. HWV258. 08:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony has asked me a question, which I have responded to which is relevant to this discussion. Must dash. --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:25, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Query regarding wikilinking at Village Pump Misc.

I have posted a query at the village pump, on the question of what is the best (long-term) way to handle redundancies among related articles. Since this pages discusses wikilinking, I thought some of you might have something to say. Cheers! AGradman / underlying article as I saw it / talk 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Acronyms

Should acronyms in parentheses be included in links or not? For example, National Football League (NFL) or National Football League (NFL)? –CWenger (talk) 16:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd go with the latter one per the KISS principle. The former uses more complicated markup with no discernible advantage. A. di M. (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks neater in isolation like this, but in a sentence already crowded with high-value links, one might be inclined not to extend the blue in this way. In fact, if the very next item is a link, there's an advantage (as MOSLINK points out) in have a bit of black in between. So I'd say it depends on context: editorial judgement is called for. Tony (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Questions re delinking

Further to the most recent blow up of this on the Queen (band) page, I thought I’d spend a bit of time putting together some questions and actually get some answers. The general ones are mostly - with some additions - on points that I and others have raised on many occasions, but that I have never seen properly addressed. The more specific ones are just a couple of examples I’ve dug out from a couple of scans of recent changes, which either highlight some of general issues, or which raise their own, more specific questions. Without wishing to dictate how others format their responses on a talk page, perhaps it would be easiest for people to add any comments under each individual question/point -

General points

wp:link explicitly says: “Provide links that aid navigation and understanding”. That is, aiding navigation is a defined aim of linking, as well as it having some kind of pedagogic function.

It also explicitly says: “Think carefully before you remove a link altogether—what may seem like an irrelevant link to you may be useful to other readers”. That is, a simple assertion by a couple of editors that a link is “not useful”, whether generally, on any page, or in a specific context, should not by itself suffice to sanction delinking the term.

It also qualifies the suggestion to “avoid linking terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia, including plain English words, the names of major geographic features and locations, religions, languages, common professions”, with the qualification/exception: “Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article”. Yes, linking “France” every time it appears in every article would lead to thousands of somewhat pointless links. But does that mean it should never be linked, even in articles about things from France?

Given the above, where is the consensus that terms such as “France”, “sitcom” etc need to be stripped from every article, even from infoboxes, whether by script or other automated process, or by manual intervention? Where, furthermore, is the consensus as to which of these terms are to be stripped? It seems to me that people running these removals are applying different criteria. Hence the process is rigid, arbitrary and inconsistent all at the same time.

Why does the presence of a link to say “London” then require the removal of the separate link to “England”, where the text includes both terms, as in “London, England”. They direct to different pages. Yes, London is in England, and people could go to the London page, and then on to England, but why reduce navigability and push people through this convoluted loop when there’s no need to?

Why remove links on the basis that “people know what/where” something is? First, at what point and on what basis do you decide when something is well-known enough – Sydney, but not Brisbane? Secondly, even if there could be some form of objective standard on this, so what anyway – I know what/where Darwin is, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to read the WP page on it, getting there from a related page.

What exactly is the “dilution” or “distraction” point? People can see the links, and decide whether they wish to go from the WP page covering the current topic to the WP page covering the related topic or not. How are they being distracted from looking at “better” links? And on what basis are we asserting that some links are uniformly – in all circumstances and for all readers – “better” anyway?

How does the “readability” point – such as it applies at all – apply to infoboxes and lists? They are not prose.

Specific recent examples

This edit to a page about a (rather tired) BBC sitcom removed, for example, the links to “sitcom” and “BBC One” - but not for example the links to pages about the other channels that the programme has been repeated on. These links are surely relevant, and in the case of the link to the page on the original broadcaster, BBC One, surely more relevant than the links to other channels. Isn't their removal somewhat arbitrary?

This edit, on a “List” page, removed the links to some cities – eg Paris, Moscow – but not others, such as Brussels. What benefit is there here? Again, on what basis is this arbitrary distinction being drawn?

Here, for example, the links to “pop music” have been removed, but the links to “country music” retained. She is best known as a singer – but we’ve also lost the link to that generic page, while keeping the link to the “political activist” page, something that is of secondary relevance. This makes no sense, surely, as well as again being totally arbitrary?

Here, where is the rule that says we should not link nationality, as asserted in the edit summary? Personally, I’m unsure whether such links are needed, but there is always arguably the option of linking to the relevant “people” article, eg "British People" rather than simply UK, or even to a more focused link on say, in this case, “Politics of the United Kingdom”.

OK, essay/questionnaire done. N-HH talk/edits 11:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: more recent examples of poor delinking

This manual edit on the Rugby football page removed links to the page that covers Football (in the widest sense, not "soccer") and to the United Kingdom, the country where the game was invented. When discussing where the game is played, it also removed the link to Portugal, while keeping the adjacent link to Romania (I later replaced all these and other links with links to the pages on rugby in each of these places); the same for New South Wales and Queensland - all completely arbitrary and inconsistent and not seemingly based on any fair reading of any style guidelines. Equally it left in place multiple repeat links to Rugby school and Rugby Sevens.
- I can live with most of the relinkings, except for United Kingdom (what in that article aids readers' understanding of rugby? All they need to know is that the sport originated there). I also removed links to basic grade-school level terms such as "alcoholic beverage" (deceptively piped to "drinking") and "social class" (pointless when you have more specific terms, "upper class" and "middle class" linked in the same section). Dabomb87 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the country-name links have been vastly improved by N-HH in his piping them to "Rugby union in ..." pages (although will the reader know this? I'm trying to think of a way to make it more obvious). I have no objection to links to relevant things in a country. The link to the UK is an unfortunate example of the old way of doing it, though. Why not the same piping idea there? Tony (talk) 09:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This script-based edit to the Dubai page removes links in an infobox to India, the country from where a vast number of expat labourers come from.
- It is true that many expat Indians go to Dubai (I have several such friends and relatives). However, a reader directed to the article Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin will find on a quick skim of the lead the basic definition of an NRI, which is probably not what they were expecting. I fixed the piped link to lead to the "Middle East" section of the article, which actually mentions NRIs in UAE and may actually be useful to the reader. Lesson: sometimes, improving link specificity can be a viable alternative to delinking. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This version of a recent main article, Sydney Newman, had been left with no link in the lead to the BBC, but did have links to other broadcasters where he had worked. Again, arbitrary and inconsistent. There were also no links in the infobox for his profession, even though "TV producer" can hardly be said to be a common occupation.
- This one I admit is a toss-up; if I had happened upon the article I probably would not have changed a thing. On one hand, the BBC is one of the most well known broadcasters in the world, and "film producer" is a pretty well-known and -understood occupation, so I see why Tony delinked those terms. On the other hand, Newman spent a large chunk of his career at the BBC, and while TV producer is pretty common, it is not as self-explanatory or universally known as author or athlete. While we're here though, I don't think that occupations are automatically qualified for links. As always, whether or not a career should be linked depends on whether readers would actually need to click on them; common terms such as writer or dancer rarely require links (unless you link to more specific career links, such as "romance novelist" or "salsa dancer"), but I would fully expect to see gastroenterologist linked. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a toss-up. The BBC is a household name all over the world, not just in the English-speaking world. There's even "BBC America". "TV producer" is too much like a dictionary word: what English-speaker doesn't know its meaning? I agree with Dabomb about "gastroenterologist". For those who are interested, I do routinely add links to Signpost articles, and even FA nominations, when I copy-edit them. It goes both ways. Tony (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but again I don't see what that has to do with anything, whether common sense or wp:link. Yes most people probably know what the BBC is, but the BBC page doesn't simply say "national and international UK public broadcaster". It's a long page full of detailed information about the organisation, including, presumably, some detail about the place when Newman was working there. I'm British and know quite a lot about the media, yet if I were to sit down and read it, 90% of it would probably be news to me, and not just because it might be nonsense. Page stats suggest it's been viewed 130,000 times last month. Are these people all stupid? And why would we want to make it more difficult for those people and others like them to reach the page from ones that are clearly relevant/related? Similar points apply - in principle - to TV producer. No WP is not a dictionary - that's precisely the point. And, again, how would we draw the line as to what is a "household name" anyway for the millions of people who come here, from millions of different places and cultures, for millions of different reasons? N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll preface my comments by saying I was extremely annoyed by the patronising tone of the post above. I would merely point out that trotting out page stats like 'the BBC article has been viewed 130,000 times last month' is all good and true, but is pretty meaningless without a detailed analysis of the origin of the hits in an attempt to understand why people are landing there. It is undoubtedly a popular topic in its own right, but it is also widely linked to. Any typical reference section will generally contain at least one link to the BBC. So no, people who click on it are not necessarily stoopid ;-) The plain simple fact is we don't know why; we also don't know how long they stayed, or if they found what they were looking for. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This edit to the Indigenous Australians page removed links to two out of the six Australian states (plus the ACT) in an infobox, as well as taking out a link to Australia in the first sentence. Why remove Queensland and Western Australia, but keep New South Wales and Victoria? Why take out a link to Australia on a page that even has the word in the title (it has since been replaced, with a slightly better link). That's possibly the most random one I've seen yet. Is anyone going to stand up for this one? N-HH talk/edits 12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, only a sample. N-HH talk/edits 19:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a rare instance where one link to the whole "Australia" article might be reasonable; however, the part you point to has been relinked as "Australian continent", which is probably less offensive to Indigenous people, who might be forgiven for seeing the Australian nation as a cruel, oppressive, destructive phenomenon. The cultural sensitivities are a minefield. As for linking the names of the colonial states, they created borders in the continent that are at loggerheads with traditional Indigenous relationships with the landscape, and perpetrated and supported such evils as the murder, displacement, and cultural destruction of the original owners, starting in the 19th century when there was no Australian nation. The articles on the states (and territories)—which are increasingly regarded as silly and expensive relics of a poorly conceived federation—are written more from the invaders' point of view than is the Australia article. If readers want to see the boundaries to see where these states and territories lie, why not one section-link to the good map of this, in the "States and territories" section of Australia? Tony (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I acknowledged the continent link was better (and also am aware of the broad political and historical issues you have highlighted). And as for the individual states, for better or worse, they are the current administrative/political divisions. Nor am I sure why you assume that readers only might want to see their boundaries, or why a link to a map would be more helpful. And anyway my point was, why unlink only two? You haven't addressed that, and it is one of the key points in the whole debate, of which this simply serves as but one example - the random consequences, especially in lists/infoboxes, of rigidly removing certain terms without looking at the individual context of each article. N-HH talk/edits 13:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding btw. I think the general points that come up, from where I'm sitting, are that relevance and navigability are key issues as well, as the guideline states, and can justify linking, even to things that are well known or to pages that might not necessarily directly assist understanding as such; plus that it's difficult to draw lines according to the latter two criteria, given the variety of people who are likely to look at pages here, and that trying to edit links according to them often leads to fairly arbitrary inconsistencies. My preference is to err on the side of keeping a link when there's a close call, unless it's manifestly redundant or trivial. Or, as you suggest, find a better and more direct link. I think it's too easy, as people who might edit here to a lesser or greater extent, to forget that a lot of people who use the site probably come here very infrequently and that navigability does matter. We might use links less, and hence think them less useful, because we've already seen the more obvious pages. Not everyone has. N-HH talk/edits 08:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

The more professional approach being adopted is to provide the minimum number of links that give the best experience for the average reader of an article. Overlinking is rife at WP, and the great work being undertaken now by many editors is to reduce that overlinking. It is a skill to bring out the high-value links that add value to an article, and linking dates and other low value targets diminish the value of links to the reader. If you want to see where we don't want to go, have a look at a few pages on the French Wikipedia. HWV258. 11:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Par exemple? - Pointillist (talk) 11:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And how exactly do you propose objectively defining what would constitute the "professional approach", or the "best experience" for the "average reader", and what "add[s] value"? And where did I talk about linking dates anywhere above? I note as well that you have not addressed in any detail any of the substantive points I spent probably far too long posting about above. Making vague noises about "overlinking" - which undoubtedly exists, and should be dealt with - does not give a small self-appointed group the right to impose an incredibly rigid stripping of specific links from hundreds of articles, where those links are often arguably very relevant to the articles in question. N-HH talk/edits 12:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your pejorative language ("impose", "self-appointed", "incredibly rigid", "stripping") is unnecessarily combative. I have spent a lot of time conversing with you, so I thought it prudent to give others a chance. I'll leave you with one thought: the foundations laid by the current work will benefit the long-termed perception and value of WP—and that is the only outcome desired by the editors involved. HWV258. 22:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It is simply descriptive, and that is what it is intended to be. The only word that could possibly be seen, in addition, as mildly pejorative is the term "self-appointed". Someone who writes in these combative terms about vanquishing their rivals is probably in more trouble when it comes to their language. Anyway, I would rather others commented as well, but I also want answers to simple questions from those who keep avoiding answering them in any detailed way. We know we disagree - you think these changes are of benefit, I and others query whether that is always the case. With the examples I cited above, those questions seem very reasonable. N-HH talk/edits 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick HH, you say "Why does the presence of a link to say “London” then require the removal of the separate link to “England”". Try Carnaby Street, Soho, London, United Kingdom, Western Europe, Europe, Northern Hemisphere, Earth, Solar system, Milky Way, Universe. I think the first one as a link is quite enough, don't you? That target includes ample geographical links itself ("chain" links).
Yes, they do "aid navigation", but they come at a cost that needs to be balanced. Just as editors are charged with making calls on matters of prose and style (within the style-guide frameworks), so they are expected to think about the readership when they link. Prose is rarely perfect on WP, and sometimes the boundary between linked and not-linked cities isn't either. You could make that issue go away by linking no cities at all, or every city. The trend is definitely away from carpet linking, because people realise wikilinking needs to be rationed intelligently to be optimised.
"I know what/where Darwin is, but that doesn’t mean I don’t want to read the WP page on it, getting there from a related page." Type it into the search box, then. Do you really think our readers click on many links at all? Naaaaah. Let's get real about it: webmasters and psychologists tell us that surprisingly little link-clicking goes on in contexts such as WP articles. Ask User:Piano non troppo, an ex-professional webmaster himself, who dealt with such issues in the corporate sector. It was his job to know. Ask a fundamental perceptual psychologist such as User:Holcombea, who knows about signal-to-noise ratio. Look at the robust research findings by marketing academics over the past six to eight years that indicate the reduction in functional behaviour by consumers when they are presented with more than a certain amount of choice (surprisingly little, actually). And then ask a reading psychologist like me whether the linking density you encounter in many articles on en.WP—and in most of the other WPs—is helping or hindering our readers.
If you want everything linked, go lobby developers at WikiMedia to introduce total linking of every item, highlighted only when the cursor hovers over it. This is not a bad idea: the latest version of the Encarta desktop dictionary—the one that comes on every Mac—does this. But the big loss would be our ability to use our knowledge and skills to show readers which items are important, relevant, and focused sufficiently for them to bother even contemplating a click. It's all about rationing—logically, intelligently—just as we ration words when we eliminate redundancy in prose. Tony (talk) 13:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Come on, point one is a little silly, when is something like that ever going to come up? We're talking about a chain of two or three words maximum, often in an infobox anyway, not in prose text. On point two, I agree - editors need to make calls. To me, that means not necessarily stripping all links to Germany from every single article, but deciding when and where such a link is relevant, and should, per wp:overlink, be included. As for carpet-linking, I think in a list it's less of an issue. The arbitrariness of removing some cities while keeping others, however, as noted in my example, is a problem. You seem to accept at least that such a middle way is not the best option, even if you'd presumably prefer outright removal of all of the links. As for point three, I'm not sure of the direct relevance of such research to what is actually quite a simple and trivial issue (and also, with no disrespect, I do not take as read the claimed expertise of anonymous wikipedia editors). It seems to be a fairly simple and uncontroversial point to argue that a link to a relevant/related topic is at least likely to be helpful at some point. It's less clear how it hinders people in any way - people have the choice to click on it or not, instead of or as well as other links. Why make them go through the search function, when there's a much easier way of connecting to directly relevant pages? And I have no stats to hand, but the idea that people rarely use wikilinks seems unlikely. I know I do. On point four, I really would be grateful if you and others would stop this "if you want everything linked ..." nonsense. I and others who have queried aspects of this campaign have been very explicit about supporting the removal of repetitive and trivial links, and of those whose relevance or significance is limited given the context. What we are asking for is a little more discretion over the removal of links to common terms, such as professions and countries/cities, where those terms are relevant to the topic at hand.

Amid all my own verbiage above, and all the theoretical debate about the fundamental purpose of wikilinks, that last comment reflects the basic point from where I'm sitting. I still fail to see what advantage is to be had, for example by removing the links to pages on Germany and World War Two from the page about a German General who commanded armies in World War Two; or by removing links to London and England/English people in the infobox for an English person who was born and lived in London. We are only talking about a couple of links on each page, and wp:overlink pretty clearly supports the view that those terms are fine to link on such pages. If you disagree with that, explain how your view fits with the wording of overlink. If you say that there is a separate, agreed consensus to override wp:overlink, point us to the discussion that came to that conclusion. These points have been evaded for long enough now, and batted off with vague assertions about "dilution", language that does not appear in wp:link. On the more theoretical points, as I've noted before, I also find the suggestion that some of us know better than others what pages those others should be looking at a little bizarre and elitist. You make broad assertions such as that wikilinks "need to be rationed", and suggest that people should turn to you if they wish to find out whether excessive links help or hinder. Your opinions are as valid as other people's of course, and you may even be right in some respects. But they remain your opinions. And, even if correct, they do not justify the removal of every single link to specific terms in every article. N-HH talk/edits 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no advantage whatsoever, other than to meet a specific personal preference. For all the talk of a supposed "sea of blue", there has been nothing said that justifies the mass deletion of thousands of useful links, the "private" declaration of what is and what is not "common knowledge", and the condescending attitude that they know best what readers do and do not wish to read. It is very easy, of course, to then label anyone who even thinks of questioning this campaign as wanting to "link everything", and thus avoid addressing the actual concerns raised. For example, where is the research regarding link density in an encyclopedic context? Why are we being parroted data about consumers when that concept has little or no connection to a non-commercial project like Wikipedia? Why should we have to tolerate this secretive, we-decide-what-should-be-delinked script-based stripping of links when the list of so-called "common terms" is not easily accessible to Wikipedia's editors and has never been discussed? The scriptwork is even presented complete with edit summaries that lead the average user to assume it must be "official", consensus-driven cleanup when it is anything but. This is all based on a narrow, overly rigid interpretation of a guideline that was also purposefully rewritten to achieve this same goal. It would be nice if we could get some honest answers to these questions, rather than the avoidance that has occurred to date. --Ckatz^chat _spy 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ckatz -- I just tried to make a series of edits. Half an hour of work. And the new wikipedia system destroyed it. Poof. I'm thinking, it didn't like the overlinking either. Seriously, though, at the margins there will always be some who disagree. I would hope that editors can cut out the wasted time of fighting, and figure out how best to address overlinking. Clearly, we could link every word. Probably could have a bot do it. Would save enormous man hours, since you would no long have to hit that square bracket key. Would you be in favor of that. Possibly. I don't know. But I'm guessing most people would not like an all-blue page. Why? For the very reasons I and some others have mentioned. If most of you are with me till this point, we then come to the question of where to draw that line, for the benefits that we all agree are engendered by not having an entirely blue page. That's all this is about, at its core. Let's start pulling in the same direction. Just my two cents. Epeefleche (my sign button is now not working either).

Eppefleche's repsonse was to my "Comment" post below; I had originally posted it directly following the above but have now moved it below to avoid it being interpreted strictly as a reply. --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm ... either I wrote my post even more poorly than usual, or you misread it, or you've just spilled coffee on your new slacks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you've misinterpreted my comment as being directed solely at you; it is not. (I'll clarify this on your talk page so as to keep this discussion focussed on linking.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 22:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I find it very frustrating to repeatedly see claims tossed about that myself, N-HH and others want to "link everything" (or words to that effect). The notion that I, or N-HH, or probably anyone else who's objected to the hard-line delinking is in favour of "linking everything" is nothing more than fiction, pure and simple. I've made that clear, and so has N-HH; it is simply a diversionary tactic from a small group who are pushing the delinking effort far beyond what many average users would consider a reasonable point. That group has drawn the line for what should and should not be linked based on their personal preferences, and it has begun to detract from the core functionality of the site. If you review the discussion to date, it becomes clear that we are not disagreeing about basic concepts (such as not linking simple words), nor the idea that we don't need to link every single time the word "Canada" appears in an article. The critical difference lies in the attitude that we should almost never link terms such as "Canada" or "New York", even in articles directly related to those terms. I've seen the delinking script used to strip away all links to the US in an article about its closest neighbour and largest trading partner, links to WWII in articles about battles in that same war, and so on. That is unreasonable, and - more to the point - there has never been a consensus to do such work. Why won't Tony and the others address repeated questions regarding why the list of "common terms" is hidden away in the depths of a script, rather than out in the open for debate and change by all Wikipedians? Why are personal opinions regarding the process - "sea of blue" and "smart linking" to name a few - being presented as if they were policy in explanations to editors who are unfamiliar with our guidleines? For that matter, why do we abide the continuous use of a loaded term as "sea of blue" when (often as not) we are really disagreeing over a handful of links amidst hundreds or thousands of words? --Ckatz^chat _spy 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

comment. I checked random edits by Tony1 and cannot justify most of them. What's curious, he arbitrary delinks some "common" names and leaves others, no less "common", linked which results in a particularly sloppy look [3]. Is there any reason to treat Hong Kong (delinked) and Thailand (left linked) differently? Whether it was a random slip, or some private judgement over who are "common" and who are not, is irrelevant; this arbitrary mosaic delinking must stop. East of Borschov (talk) 05:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

First, N-HH, could you please write less: people will be more likely to read it. I have a sore finger scrolling down and I find myself just skimming your text it is so long. Seriously, I'm doing you a favour in providing this advice. State the punch-lines at the start.

Second, this is just a re-run of the same old issues that have been aired here many times by the same people. Do I have to recycle the rejoinders? WP:LINK's guidelines on minimising links to common geographical terms (not to mention bunching them together) are well-established and well-supported by the community. The boundary between whether Thailand or Hong Kong should be linked is more up to individual editors, and if they want to go in and unlink "Thailand", sure, I have no objection—it has little value as a wikilink, and dilutes the important links surrounding it. I would have problems in re-linking "Hong Kong", just as I have problems linking "France" at the top of the article on "Champagne"; and "New York City". A boundary will always need to be applied to these items, just as we do WRT the linking of non-geographical items. This is nothing new: just a re-rurn of the same old dialogue. Tony (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Damned if we do, damned if we don't, eh, Tony? You give those who disagree with you grief if they don't explain their position, then you chastize them when they do. Frankly, it would be a lot better for everyone involved in this sorry mess if you would just please address the points raised above. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't comprehend your first point here. There is a balance that must be struck in what is worth wikilinking and what is not. We long ago dispensed with the initial "link whatever you like" practice. Just as in prose style, editors have their own ideas: the larger picture (and some details) are set out in the style guides. You have breached this style guide on purpose in the article Squamish. I assume good faith that it wasn't to bait other editors. I ask you to assume good faith on my part. And I ask you to discuss substantive issues rather than personal ones, which has been almost the entire thrust of your posts on the matter of linking to date. Your next post will also avoid the substantive issue. Tony (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm... last I checked, I wasn't the one accusing you of being a malcontent, or of trying to link everything, nor am I misrepresenting your statements, etc, etc. If you really want to keep this on a professional rather than a personal level, then you will have to make an honest effort to behave professionally. Look, Tony, this all began when you rewrote the guidelines to match your personal preferences. Frankly, I think you took unfair advantage of your reputation on Wikipedia to make changes without proper discussion. However, now we're two years down the road and we have to work with what we have. At this point in time, it would really help if - instead of relentlessly trying to push on with your vision of delinking - you would simply consider compromising in order to accomodate others who do not share the same dream. --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Your next post will also avoid the substantive issue." Whadd'I tell you? Tony (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And once again, you're glossing over any and all concerns raised in favour of more cheap shots. Seems we're in a bit of a rut, doesn't it? --Ckatz^chat _spy 09:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware I can be a little verbose, but, you know, reading something that isn't total drivel isn't really that hard, and sometimes there are quite a few points to be made. Especially when most of them are never addressed in any detail, or are even deleted without your reading them - which is why we ended up at ANI at all - and all that we get in response are accusations of being "malcontents" et al or of "wanting to link everything". To be quite frank Tony, most of your comments at ANI and the raids you have launched on to people's talk pages who have dared to query your behaviour, or make simple factual points about the date case, reflects very badly on you. Seriously, I'm doing you a favour with that advice. When you find that most people who comment on a topic have issues with your actions and arguments, perhaps you should stop railing against them, and maybe just ask for a second whether they might have some valid points and concerns. In a collaborative environment, whether you like it or not, if you can't persaude those people that you are "right", especially about fairly minor style points, then by definition you are not right. N-HH talk/edits 14:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Substantive point - Tony, you have at least above been a bit more specific in responding to specific issues, eg by talking about common terms such as Hong Kong, France etc above. However, I continually point out to you that there is an exception even in wp:link as written, which suggests linking them when they are relevant to the main topic. France in Champagne seems relevant to me. Canada in an article about an area in Canada seems relevant to me. On what basis do you disagree? Would you keep reverting even where consensus is against you on such points in individual cases? N-HH talk/edits 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

←"The" is relevant to the article on Champagne, too. Why not link it? "France" is sooooo general, and sooooo well-known, why don't you find a section link or a more focused daughter article ("Agriculture in France", if it exists?)—then your only problem would be that "France" as a pipe would be deceptive, and still no one would bother clicking it. "France" is adjacent to the more specific location, which links to France itself, if anyone would need to know even from that article. You are caught up in this concept of linking as auto-browsing: a magic blue carpet to anywhere vaguely relevant to the topic, just in case someone wanted to click it. They almost never do, I'm afraid, and your constant pushing for the linking of common geographical terms is further diluting the likelihood that readers will use the system. You think you're improving it, but you're degrading it. Good faith, but faulty reasoning, IMO. But taking this to ANI was in extremely bad faith—a political stunt to smear me. It is disreputable. Similarly, your use of political language is transparent—now my posts on users' talk pages are "raids"—oh give me a break. And as someone else pointed out above, the use of emotive words such as "stripping" rather than "unlinking" does your case no good at all. People see through the spin. You are not speech-writing for a politician or inventing language for TV ads.

And no, you don't write "total drivel"—you write well (just too much). This is why it's such a pity you've chosen to fight tooth-and-nail efforts to improve the readability and appearance of our text, not to mention the dilution of high-value wikilinks, and thus the utility of the whole wikilinking system. That is what we are trying to protect. Linking needs to be selective to be of real assistance to the readers. Linking "France" is not only useless: it insults the intelligence of the readers, even the eight-year-old. Tony (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tony, as I pointed out from the outset, I went to ANI because you ignored and deleted a clear note from me alerting you to the errors. And my use of terms such as "stripping" and "raids" is fair enough when referring to scripts being used on multiple articles, and your posting of notes on several editors' talk pages making wild accusations against them (eg telling a non-admin that they're not fit to be an admin, and leaving shouty messages in block capitals). On linking, as ever, much of your argument is about assertion and guesswork, about what every other user might be doing, or ought to be doing when reading articles. Editing involves judgment in the light of context, and linking is about navigability and options. And, for exmaple, in what way exactly is it "insulting the intelligence" of readers to offer even one link to France in an article about a French thing? It's not of course suggesting they don't know what/where France is. It's just saying - here's the option of going to that related/relevant page and reading it, if you wish to. It's far more insulting to people's capabilities to suggest that if we don't take out the link, they might be misled somehow into clicking it when they really didn't want to. I mean, that's just bizarre, as I've pointed out before. The dilution/distraction argument applies when a list of random ELs are dumped at the bottom of a page. There, filtering can work and help the reader. Wikilinks are much more transparent. N-HH talk/edits 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What? Tony (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What part of It's far more insulting to people's capabilities to suggest that if we don't take out the link, they might be misled somehow into clicking it when they really didn't want to. don't you understand? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus

OK, since we don't get answers above, and we don't get answers at the (second) ANI thread, let's start again, and keep it simple - 1) where is the consensus to delink common terms/countries in every instance, regardless of context; and 2) where is the consensus as to which terms/countries fall within the definition of "common"? Links to those discussions please. Then we can perhaps look at how to maybe move forward with an RfC. N-HH talk/edits 19:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nearly a month later, and nearly three months after I first asked them, and still no answer? N-HH talk/edits 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, quite telling, isn't it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC?

I think it'd be helpful if we had an RfC on delinking, so we can trash out an actual consensus on what the principles are, and if/how any auto/semi-auto delinking should proceed. One thing that's needed is for those who are delinking to present what exact scripts and rules they are using in deciding what links to remove, and on what basis that decision was made. I think we all agree on the general idea that there is overlinking, and nobody wants to "link everything", but there is a grey area involved certain "common terms". A clear example is Champagne (wine): Tony wants to remove France from the lead arguing that it adds no value; I suspect many editors would think a link to France in the lead of a drink that is so strongly associated with France would be a good idea. The same edit did remove extraneous links like Prime Minister next to Tony Blair, though I'd argue that Co-operative is handy when mentioning wine co-ops. So the delinking here is open to debate. I think the RfC needs to decide 1. What is actually is considered to be overlinking. 2. Whether automated processes are the right way to approach delinking. Can we write an RfC wording that says this neutrally and succinctly? Fences&Windows 21:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It is very hard to seek opinions simultaneously on (1) the boundaries between common items that should be, can be, and should not generally be linked, and (2) automation to unlink such items. For example, the result of (1) might well render a positive result on (2) unachievable technically. Automation requires its own set of proposals based on a result in (1). In any case, automation can never play a major role in reducing overlinking, since human oversight is required constantly, and the scope of items included in automation has to be only a small proportion of those that, in their context, need to be unlinked. It is essentially a manual task. (1) would need to be dealt with first.

The whole article on "France" is of little use to anyone but a reader who wants to wander through the most general links; "France" is now relinked right after "the Champagne region". The guideline says, "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics." It also says, "Provide links that aid navigation and understanding, but avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links." and "can make it harder for the reader to identify and follow those links which are likely to be of value". and "Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?" There are more than 100 links in the article text, and nine in the vicinity of the reinserted link to "France". So the guideline is telling us to be selective, in my reading of it. What is the value of the whole article on France at that particular point? Who doesn't know what France is? Nothing is stopping someone going to the article; but it seems just to dilute as an additional link at the top. Wouldn't a more specific link than the whole of France be more useful to the reader? ("Agriculture in France"?), wound into the article smoothly?

The same applies to "Prime Minister", which is already prominently linked from the top of the far more specific "Tony Blair" article: here, it bunches together with "Prime Minister", against this guideline: "When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link".

These guidelines have evolved over years, and everyone was here when User:Kotniski led a conflation of two other pages into this one. Which parts of the guideline are at issue? Tony (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there are two threads to the issue - 1) the delinking of common terms in principle, and 2) the use of scripts or other systems to bring that about. Not all the unlinking is done by scripts. In principle I don't object to the use of scripts, and think they probably do a good job in terms of removing redundant, repetitive and irrelevant links to common terms that are linked too often, usually when the terms crop up in passing in unrelated articles, as they often will. However, I do think that a) the terms they are stripping need to be clear and open and agreed, and b) there needs to be manual review of their effects in each instance, not only to avoid obvious mistakes per the ANI thread, but maybe sometimes to restore one or two links that are going to be relevant in the context of that individual page, or that restore consistency to lists or infoboxes. My personal preference - and there is nothing in wp:overlink to say this is a "wrong" view - is to err on the side of inclusion in those cases. For those who edit here, it's too easy to get sucked into a narrow vision and also to overanalyse everything. I'm for example never going to move through to the France page from the French wine page in the future, and we can all theorise about what might subjectively be "better" or "high impact" links, but - forgive me for the cliche and the hypothetical - who's to say that a 15 year old from Hawaii who's looking at the latter page for the first time, to research a school project, wouldn't find it useful? Even if they broadly know what/where France is already.

I don't think it's impossible to draft an RfC that would at least help establish a broader consensus one way or the other on these issues, and that would agree how scripts should be compiled and used and their effects monitored/reviewed, and yes, sometimes mitigated. Also I do think that even without an RfC, those running scripts should be checking/proofing their effects in each case anyway, and also should learn to shrug their shoulders a little if another editor comes by subsequently to reinsert maybe a couple of links, if there's plausible justification for that. N-HH talk/edits 16:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I do believe discussion on this page should be conducted without mentioning other users, unless in positive terms. I think the use of items such as "stripping", "campaign", "point-scoring" and "raids" should be avoided by all. I think other people would readily agree to this. Is that the case? It is most important to be collaborative. Tony (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's add "sea of blue" to the list, OK? That would be of great benefit; what would also help would be ensuring that we all take great pains to represent each other's position accurately and with a complete absence of any hyperbole. Is that also acceptable? --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

And, if we could, accusations of "political stunts", that others have been "venting" or have "extreme views" or "do not accept the rules" or "complain loudly" etc etc, as well an end to answering others' posts with the response "What?", or simply not reading them altogether. Also - from others - accusations of "forum shopping" of "haranguing" etc etc. As my post above shows, I am more than capable of explaining the queries and issues calmly and reasonably. Reciprocation would indeed be welcome. N-HH talk/edits 05:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

ps: note the word "raids" was a one-off, used to refer to a very specific set of comments made on other's talk pages. "Stripping" I use regularly, and I use it with a purpose, since it accurately describes the act of rigidly removing all links, via a script. That's at the core of the issue, and the word is not intended to be inflammatory or to denigrate. To me it's simply accurate, just as you would "strip" wallpaper from a room. I don't simply say "taking out" because that can imply a more selective removal. And I'm not against that, and never have been, as of course you know. N-HH talk/edits 05:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"sea of blue" is a descriptive means of addressing a substantive issue in the debate. "campaign" targets editors. HWV258. 21:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a neutral term by any stretch of the imagination, especially given that it has been used in situations where said use is utterly ludicrous. --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"unlinking" or "delinking" are neutral; as opposed to linking and stripping. As an act of good will, we could all neutralise our language as perceived by others, couldn't we? Ckatz takes issue with some usage; I will endeavour to persuade people not to use it, where I can identify it. The important thing, to me, is that the focus be taken away from people. Tony (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, all of those items mentioned above, and an avoidance of anything negative about anyone. This would be a welcome move towards a more harmonious and productive environment here. I ask all regular editors to agree to this. Tony (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  - All of these words could be substituted with more neutral items, couldn't they? Instead of "sea of blue", talk in terms of link/non-link ratio, or signal-to-noise ratio in a technical sense, or dilution. This is not hard if it keeps the peace. "Stripping" is an emotive word, to me. Tony (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me make two suggestions to start this:

One: It is very useful to note that wikilinks that start with : (which we use for linking to image files without showing the image, for example) will still show up and be linked. Any bot/script that is dealing with removal of links should ignore such links, as this gives a natural way for editors to tag a link as "opt out" from the delinking process.
Two: We should have a discussion/RFC to determine the appropriateness and removal of "common geographic names in the English language" including what terms consistent this. This seems like the only assured area that a bot/script can perform delinking within prose due to the obviousness of it, and also appears to be an area where there is mutual agreement for this. If there are clearly other classes of words that can be considered at the same time, we should do that too, but we need very clear understanding of what these classes or lists will be and how they will be applied. Let's not try to solve all of the best types of linking/delinking in one go, but instead what can easily be done via bots/scripts. Assuredly any other types of links are going to require more editorial monitoring and the like. --MASEM (t) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Having read this entire thread, can I make a few points to narrow things down? (They're not really related)

Scope. Can we narrow the discussion explicitly to geographic names, since that seems to be the main focus?
Presence indicates relevance. The fact that a term is mentioned at all in an article gives weight to its being linked. Having translated a number of French Wikipedia articles, I have some sympathy with the idea above that they tend to link more over here than we do at EN:WP, even excluding the date linking and other kinda mechanical linking that they do more than we do. However, you will find that when places are referred to "France" is hardly ever mentioned, let alone linked. This makes sense: an editor has decided that it's not worth saying that Rouen is in France, so there's no need to mention France. That is, the presence at all of a theoretically redundant term nudges it in favour of being linked at first use (it does not make it a black-and-white decision by any means, of course). If we write "Rouen, France" we should either pipe the whole phrase (which is hardly WP:EGG) or also link France. And on the flip side of that coin, since we don't then say that France is in Europe The World The Milky Way The Universe we neither can nor should link those terms.
Accessibility. There are two practical points that seems to have been missed about "you can get to France from Rouen" and so on. Those on who have limited ability to interact with the browser (e.g. because of some disability or because they are have limited technology such as a mobile device) might not find it particularly easy to jump to via a search box where they have to type it. On the other hand, those that use assistive technologies such can find links a hindrance since they might be spoken or displayed in a way that disrupts the article's flow. Also, not everyone has a 300Tb/s connection, and having to request the Rouen article JUST to get the France article up wastes bandwidth, even if only a small proportion of the article need be downloaded to be able to link through.
Sea of blue. Can we just dismiss this since nobody (that I can see) is suggesting (for the purposes of this discussion) that links should be increased (beyond restoring links that were once present), over whether they should be automatically or semi-automatically reduced. In any case, presumably the WikiMedia engine, a skin, a client-side script or other intermediate technology could in theory be fashioned to link every word or phrase that had a corresponding Wikipedia article, on the fly rather than in the stored version. This would in any case fail to be as helpful as where editors manually put in piped links for things like natural reading order, specificity, disambiguation, and so on.

Just a few suggestions on how we might limit the discussion to what I see, as an interested but somewhat passive observer, to what are the main points. Si Trew (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Past RfCs

As an aside, looking back over the archives, I see mention of previous RfCs. Can anyone provide pointers for them - just so we don't reinvent the wheel? --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)